Infantry Discussion Thread 10: Shovel Edition [NO FWORDS]

[Rhodesialund]

Sorry, you kept saying "back up iron sights" I thought you meant "useful out to distances comparable to the optic" or something silly, which a pair of MBUS is adequate for.

Ehhh, you'd be surprised how far you can get out there with such crude sights. I've surprised myself with a friend's AUG A1 with the nubs. Managed to ring a 100 yard 24" gong multiple times in the first magazine. Probably could have stretched it to 200 yards but no such thing was available.

Although I'd stress that was due to marksmanship, a perishable skill, that enabled me to do that. You aren't gonna be having an infantryman practice with crude sights or hinder himself purposefully in training to practice the principle of marksmanship. You are gonna have him qual'd on the optic on what, a yearly or monthly basis? The rest is mundane shit from cutting grass with hand scissors to mopping up the driveway when it's raining.

[Rhodesialund]

I've seen this thread several times but I don't think I've ever commented on it.

I need AR-15 recommendations, I was originally looking at the Springfield Saint and while the reviews were okay I came to see that Springfield is somewhat hated as a company. (Details?)

Right now I'm looking at the Sig M400 Enhanced and it seems to be a pretty good mid-tier rifle.

Any suggestions would be welcomed.

Details are that Springfield and Rock River Arms fucked over other small gun manufacturers in Illinois with the state legislature, which gave them an easier time to establish a dual-monopoly in the gun making biz in that state. That's the short of it.


Honestly, you are good with any AR-15 manufacturer because of no one ever RP'ing how shitty their rifles are. Just pick one that suits your aesthetics.

[Gallia-]

Probably till you have a stroke or something.

I'm not even mad, that's impossible for me at the moment.

I'm mostly just amused how Rhodesialund thinks xe has disproven my point by pointing there are a bunch of sights on some stupid scopes, leaving aside the fact that no one has ever used these sights as an actual "back up irons" because their utility is nil given the sight radius is smaller than a handgun's, which puts their useful range under about 20 meters. This is well within point shooting distance, which is a common taught method of close combat engagement, because it means you can point at and kill an opponent in less than a second. A soldier will prefer to fire in a snap motion, like a pointed quick fire, on automatic than fiddle with some tiny sights on his scope that won't even help very much.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/ ... /81494556/

The US Marines have adopted the MBUS sights, although I'd consider it superfluous since it's rather rare that an ACOG will actually break, and when it does you're just as good shooting from your broken sight or from the front post as you are your little iron sights. I suppose the Germans will suit when they ditch G36 forever for HK416.

Sorry, you kept saying "back up iron sights" I thought you meant "useful out to distances comparable to the optic" or something silly, which a pair of MBUS is adequate for.

Ehhh, you'd be surprised how far you can get out there with such crude sights. I've surprised myself with a friend's AUG A1 with the nubs. Managed to ring a 100 yard 24" gong multiple times in the first magazine. Probably could have stretched it to 200 yards but no such thing was available.

The "I shot at some paper so it must be good," school of infantry marksmanship.

Although I'd stress that was due to marksmanship, a perishable skill, that enabled me to do that. You aren't gonna be having an infantryman practice with crude sights or hinder himself purposefully in training to practice the principle of marksmanship. You are gonna have him qual'd on the optic on what, a yearly or monthly basis? The rest is mundane shit from cutting grass with hand scissors to mopping up the driveway when it's raining.

No, he'd shoot at a target like this:



But further away. And running towards it. On full automatic.

"Marksmanship" is a joke without optical sights and computer assistance in small unit actions. It's fine on the rifle range where you can basically make a shotgun fly 50 yards or whatever, but in combat you're looking at about 20 yards for any accurate fire with your goofy silly back up irons, unless they're MBUS, in which case we can extend that to about 100 yards. Beaten zones/large cones of fire and sustained automatic fire both increase this distance slightly, but optical sights improve it tremendously.

With iron sights, you're basically shooting randomly and have no real hope of hitting your target. To the point that most combat will devolve into firing from the hip blindly in the general direction of the enemy, which means you either close with them in close combat (which might be hand to hand or 20 meters or whatever) to destroy them, or you drive them from their position with superior volume of fire.

Accuracy simply isn't really a factor until you've gotten accurate optics and even then it's kind of a crapshoot, since you're still being thrown off by shakiness and adrenaline which can only be compensated for by a computer using a stabilization system or some sort of automatic firing system (like a tank gun) that fires only when you've passed over an area in space where you'll intersect the target. Main battle tanks do this already, since their guns wobble just like people's do, and the computer has to wait for a proper shot window where the bore will sweep over a target and intersect it at several kilometers. Naturally, the high velocity and high accuracy of tank guns makes it hard to notice (modern tank FCS >90% first round Ph) because it's very subtle movement, but it happens.

How to defeat an ambush:

1) Take cover.
2) Throw grenades. Wait for explosions.
3) Stand up and run towards the enemy. Fire on full automatic, from the hip. Maximum shock action is generated if you project full automatic fire while assaulting into the ambush.
4) Close with the enemy to drive him from his dominant position. Keep moving towards him. Do not stop firing on full automatic. Do not stop to aim.
5) When the enemy has broken contact, press the attack to destroy the ambush. If he has been destroyed, reorganize.
6) Repeat until Berlin is conquered.

The key points are fire and movement (marching [really, running] fire) and full automatic.

[Rhodesialund]

The "I shot at some paper so it must be good," school of infantry marksmanship.

It's called getting the fundamentals down, but hey it's not like you know anything about it.

How to defeat an ambush:

1) Take cover.
2) Throw grenades. Wait for explosions.
3) Stand up and run towards the enemy. Fire on full automatic, from the hip. Maximum shock action is generated if you project full automatic fire while assaulting into the ambush.
4) Close with the enemy to drive him from his dominant position. Keep moving towards him. Do not stop firing on full automatic. Do not stop to aim.
5) When the enemy has broken contact, press the attack to destroy the ambush. If he has been destroyed, reorganize.
6) Repeat until Berlin is conquered.

Not gonna disagree on that.

[Gallia-]

The "I shot at some paper so it must be good," school of infantry marksmanship.

It's called getting the fundamentals down, but hey it's not like you know anything about it.

Try hitting this at 300 yards with your goofy sights. You'll fail. The M16 can hit that 100% of the time at the same distance.

Anyway, what if I told you most soldiers are terrible shots?

The fundamentals matter in a minority of cases. Like zeroing the rifle properly and being able to aim for the same building or room the other guy is in.

They don't actually count in the nitty gritty of combat, which is destroying the enemy and killing the other guy. You're either so close that any zeroing errors are eliminated (aka in his trench) or so far away that you're incapable of accurately gauging distance and applying improper height adjustments to a target near the battle zero distance (300 meters) or not applying those height adjustments to a target, thinking it is near battle zero.

Optics help mitigate this somewhat because they provide multiple, accurate height adjustments when battle zeroed, provide a magnified view of the target, and allow you to observe the fall of shot further out.

Marksmanship beyond "can you zero your rifle" and "can you hit some man-sized targets on a rifle range" is meaningless. No one is "plinking" in combat, and your silly anecdote about 100 yards on a rifle range with some shitty sights is proof of that. You wouldn't be able to hit anyone past maybe 50 yards in combat. In general, combat takes place at ranges you'd consider extremely close, but is actually very far away under that sort of stress. Urban combat in Iraq might average around 50-75 meters or less, which means that soldiers could quite literally assault their way through insurgent strongpoints by running and shooting from the hip like Rambo with a realistic chance of success. But that's WW2 tactics.

Puzikas would have actual numbers since he has the ACR report and I don't, but basically everything you think you know about guns is more or less academic. Soldiers are generally "bad shots" by the typical range shooter's standards (they compensate with large numbers of average shooters, tanks, and close air support, because it turns out that individual marksmanship and skill is made meaningless in modern small unit actions), combat stresses means that shooting at anything past about 100 yards is generally extremely difficult without an optical sight, and while hitting things within that distance is easier, slightly, it becomes much easier with an optical sight.

These are using iron sights whose sight radius is the size of the rifle. Iron sights whose sight radius are the size of a handgun are automatically suspect and of dubious to nil utility.

[Yes Im Biop]

You guys done?

WHat is the future for metalstorm stacked weapons? The grenade launchers seem great and easy but the rest a was always wondering about, the first shot would have very different ballistics compared to the last shell

[Free-Don]

nah,

I keep irons with quick detach/attach optics because optics aren't given to everyone (cost, unwillingness to issue the mostly militia and local guard forces, etc.) and because in my experience with airsoft I've seen too many cameras and red dots shot out, smashed against vehicles (closed a fake tank door on my rifle when testing a three-point sling), real steel versions getting water logged during a three day event that crossed paths with a storm, scratched after climbing a fence, kicked in with steel boot by a angry 12 year old, cracked after a pyrotechnic grenade gone sexy, burnt with smoke grenade, falling into concrete stripping off the exposed dials because you left the protective cover at home, etc.

I've seen real stuff fall apart and it's almost always it's own little funeral (cause they so expensive) for everyone involved.

[Crookfur]

I've seen this thread several times but I don't think I've ever commented on it.

I need AR-15 recommendations, I was originally looking at the Springfield Saint and while the reviews were okay I came to see that Springfield is somewhat hated as a company. (Details?)

Right now I'm looking at the Sig M400 Enhanced and it seems to be a pretty good mid-tier rifle.

Any suggestions would be welcomed.

If you mean for something to buy IRL i'm not sure if many of us pay that much attention to the AR market, you might get more put of the gun talk thread in the general sub forum.

Saying that unless you come up against any real horror stories just any AR will be good. I Don't think there are any super bargains around at the moment (well outside of any RRA or springfeild stuff in response to thier political shenanigans and the resultant bouycot).

Perhaps inrange TV's what would stoner do series might be of interest if you had thoughts on putting something together yourself?

[Greater United American Republics]

On a scale of one to ten, how many levels of 70s/80s technological-cool do I rate if my issued GPMG is a modification of the HK XM262?

[Crookfur]

On a scale of one to ten, how many levels of 70s/80s technological-cool do I rate if my issued GPMG is a modification of the HK XM262?

8-9 depending on what you mean by modification and for what purposes the mods are done.

[Purpelia]

For the record, if you want to envision my idea literally just imagine a FAMAS but with a scope poking through the back like the G36. The backup iron sights I mentioned would be the iron sights that are in the FAMAS handle. And no, I obviously do not expect that to be as effective as the scope to the same range. Even I know that with a magnified thing you can shoot further because you can see things that are further away better. That's video game levels of obvious. It's just there to make you less nervous when you want to use your rifle as a club.

[Thoricia]

It's called getting the fundamentals down, but hey it's not like you know anything about it.

Try hitting this at 300 yards with your goofy sights. You'll fail. The M16 can hit that 100% of the time at the same distance.

Anyway, what if I told you most soldiers are terrible shots?

The fundamentals matter in a minority of cases. Like zeroing the rifle properly and being able to aim for the same building or room the other guy is in.

They don't actually count in the nitty gritty of combat, which is destroying the enemy and killing the other guy. You're either so close that any zeroing errors are eliminated (aka in his trench) or so far away that you're incapable of accurately gauging distance and applying improper height adjustments to a target near the battle zero distance (300 meters) or not applying those height adjustments to a target, thinking it is near battle zero.

Optics help mitigate this somewhat because they provide multiple, accurate height adjustments when battle zeroed, provide a magnified view of the target, and allow you to observe the fall of shot further out.

Marksmanship beyond "can you zero your rifle" and "can you hit some man-sized targets on a rifle range" is meaningless. No one is "plinking" in combat, and your silly anecdote about 100 yards on a rifle range with some shitty sights is proof of that. You wouldn't be able to hit anyone past maybe 50 yards in combat. In general, combat takes place at ranges you'd consider extremely close, but is actually very far away under that sort of stress. Urban combat in Iraq might average around 50-75 meters or less, which means that soldiers could quite literally assault their way through insurgent strongpoints by running and shooting from the hip like Rambo with a realistic chance of success. But that's WW2 tactics.

Puzikas would have actual numbers since he has the ACR report and I don't, but basically everything you think you know about guns is more or less academic. Soldiers are generally "bad shots" by the typical range shooter's standards (they compensate with large numbers of average shooters, tanks, and close air support, because it turns out that individual marksmanship and skill is made meaningless in modern small unit actions), combat stresses means that shooting at anything past about 100 yards is generally extremely difficult without an optical sight, and while hitting things within that distance is easier, slightly, it becomes much easier with an optical sight.

These are using iron sights whose sight radius is the size of the rifle. Iron sights whose sight radius are the size of a handgun are automatically suspect and of dubious to nil utility.

You must be a terrible shot if you can't hit anything out past 15 meters with iron sites. It's also apparent you have no actual experience with guns or have ever actually used one.

[Gallia-]

You must be a terrible reader if that's what you got out of all those words.

The fact that you think shooting at some paper on a practice range is comparable to combat is cute, too.

[Thoricia]

You must be a terrible reader if that's what you got out of all those words.

What I got was you saying iron sights are useless and that you have no practical experience with firearms and can only quote statistics that other people mention.
Pretty sure that sums it up right?

[Greater United American Republics]

On a scale of one to ten, how many levels of 70s/80s technological-cool do I rate if my issued GPMG is a modification of the HK XM262?

8-9 depending on what you mean by modification and for what purposes the mods are done.

Flipping the action upside down, giving it a Universal Machine Gun (the US program), philco-ford, stoner or something else from the 1970s Squad Automatic Weapon program for an ammunition feed.

[Gallia-]

You must be a terrible reader if that's what you got out of all those words.

What I got was

What I got was you saying you think you know about guns because you shot a few, have no combat experience, and prove it by dismissing "other people".

you saying iron sights are useless

Compared to a SUSAT or some similar combat optic, in terms of hitting targets at range, in a stressful environment, while both are moving and being shot at? Absolutely.

Only a buffoon would deny that.

and that you have no practical experience with firearms and can only quote statistics that other people mention.

I wouldn't want practical experience with firearms. Killing people is a bit jarring and I'm not sure how I'd feel about it afterwards (or during, since being shot at can be a stressful experience in itself), but that's why you have "other people" who you can ask about the subject. Or in this case, test, evaluate, and quantify results scientifically, to produce a superior product. In this case, the product is a rifle with an optical sight instead of iron sights.

Pretty sure that sums it up right?

If you say so, it must be true.

[Austrasien]

I'm going off on the tangent that "Shit breaks" so it's just nice to have a backup as a just in case.

I don't actually see a problem with keeping iron sights because I agree with Puz. Which is also why I mentioned DARPA magic, a sight that can focus on things near and far would be ideal. But I also find the argument the iron sights are needed to guard against "sight failure" contrived. The risk a gun will be disabled by optics failure is much smaller than the risk it will disabled by mundane problems with the action and the effects of firing. Like, you know, the G36 was.

[Gallia-]

Pfft.

Just have two optics on your gun. Like G36.

e: Oh wait that means you'd need like three backup iron sights. One for each of the optics plus the gun itself.

[Thoricia]

What I got was

What I got was you saying you think you know about guns because you shot a few, have no combat experience, and prove it by dismissing "other people".

you saying iron sights are useless

Compared to a SUSAT or some similar combat optic, in terms of hitting targets at range, in a stressful environment, while both are moving and being shot at? Absolutely.

Only a buffoon would deny that.

and that you have no practical experience with firearms and can only quote statistics that other people mention.

I wouldn't want practical experience with firearms. Killing people is a bit jarring and I'm not sure how I'd feel about it afterwards (or during, since being shot at can be a stressful experience in itself), but that's why you have "other people" who you can ask about the subject. Or in this case, test, evaluate, and quantify results scientifically, to produce a superior product. In this case, the product is a rifle with an optical sight instead of iron sights.

Pretty sure that sums it up right?

If you say so, it must be true.

And now we're backpedaling, you mentioned that iron sights are useless and optics are the only way to go. To not train people with iron sights is a fallacy really, furthermore practical experience does not involve killing people, if that's what you think of as experience required to operate a firearm than you really have no fucking clue what so ever.

[Purpelia]

Reading all your posts here has made me think, and think, and think. And I think I have thought enough to actually be able to put something into words here. Now, bear with me for a moment here because what I am about to explain is why I ask the questions I do and come up with the ideas I do.

And before I start, yes, I did not think this needed explaining. And that is why I newer did. In fact, that is why it is difficult to explain, as it is something that to me goes without saying but to others won't. It's strange that. Also, this is the infantry thread, so I will be talking about firearms, but feel free to insert tanks, aircraft or really any piece of military hardware or information in place of that. It's all the same.

So, let's begin with a simple statement. I do not care about firearms. Not the way you people do at least. That is why I (to you) seem to both have an interest in them and not. You people seem to care about firearms as things of historical significance, or maybe weapons, or maybe toys you like to play with and shoot. I don't care about any of that. For me a rifle is not interesting as a weapon or a tool or a collectible or indeed a functional object at all. What's interesting to me in a rifle is the mechanical aspect. It's the rifle as a complex intricate mechanism with all sorts of moving parts that all interact in well engineered ways. And again, the same thing applies to aircraft, tanks etc.

And that is where my knowledge, ideas and questions are going to come from. It's why the only gun related channels and sites I visit are stuff like Forgotten Weapons. For me, knowing how the trigger mechanism on some obscure complicated gun from the 30's works or why historical engineers made some of the funky choices they did (like for example trying to evade certain patents) or the reasoning behind the one man turret on French tanks is what's interesting. That's why all my weapon designs so far (and I've not posted half of them) look like something better suited to Forgotten Weapons than to a proper museum (or god forbid army). And that's why I often come up with random ideas like 20mm machine guns for infantry or sticking 4x20mm in the nose of a rear engined fighter. I am doing that on purpose because that mechanical tinkering is what's interesting to me.

It's also why I appear to be interested in firearms and yet at the same time know (or care to learn) nothing about them from a functional perspective. If I was offered a firearm today, any weapon at all from all of history, what I'd want is some complicated abomination like the G11 or AN-94 that I could spend weeks taking apart and reverse engineering every single detail. And once that's done I'd return it without ever firing a shot. I probably would not even pick it up to see how it feels.


Now, where does this most recent discussion about sights come in? Well, it's simple really. I have, over the last years seen a lot of content pertaining to the mechanical side of firearms. But any and all knowledge beyond that in my possession is limited to the things I accidentally picked up whilst researching what I care about. And that's really not things such as sights. To me the sights on a rifle are sort of like the hands on a clock. They serve a vital function but are at the same time utterly uninteresting because there is nothing intricately mechanical about them. It might as well be two sticks sticking out for all I care.
But there comes a point where I actually want to present one of my mechanisms in a fully packaged way. And that requires having that information which I lack because I do not care about it or have practical experience with it. So this last question of mine is basically me coming here to outsource that part.

[Austrasien]

Pfft.

Just have two optics on your gun. Like G36.

This is true.

But a front post near the muzzle is a e s t h e t i c. Guns without them look funny.

[Thoricia]

Pfft.

Just have two optics on your gun. Like G36.

e: Oh wait that means you'd need like three backup iron sights. One for each of the optics plus the gun itself.

>Jump in hole
>Optics break
>Shooty stick no good any more
>What do
>FIX BAYONETS

[Gallia-]

And now we're backpedaling, you mentioned that iron sights are useless and optics are the only way to go.

It's pretty much true. Once you've acquired Close Combat Optic and ACOG, you're set. If you can combine them into variable magnification, variable focal length gunsight, you're even better, but I already told Viky that sounds $$$.

To not train people with iron sights is a fallacy really,

It's really not. I'm not sure how that's "a fallacy" I don't think you know what that word means, but the fundamentals of marksmanship are the same no matter what sight you use. You don't need iron sights to learn how to shoot a gun. Optics are easier to use anyway, so they're better. Iron sights are for poors, hipsters, and the intransigent.

furthermore practical experience does not involve killing people,

Yeah, it does. Sorry, that's sort of the job of the infantryman, that's relevant to the thread's title, and is the entire point of discussion.

if that's what you think of as experience required to operate a firearm

No, that's what I think of as experience required to speak on the subject of accuracy of iron sights vs. optical sights in combat. You generally have to have seen combat to understand what goes well with combat, otherwise you work from imagination which is meaningless. Then you can then allow your experiences to be recorded and transmitted to other people, who can look at the results, compare things, and find new solutions to existing problems that will work better.

Case in point: Optical gunsights.

than you really have no fucking clue what so ever.

No, you have no clue.

You jumped into a conversation without reading the preceding pages, without establishing context, and without sufficient reading comprehension or synthesis of statements to come to an accurate conclusion. You made a few really ridiculous assumptions that would have been avoided if you actually looked at the thread title:

1) You assumed I was speaking generally about firearms. I was not. I was speaking in the very specific context of infantrymen in combat, where optical gunsights have proven themselves almost twice as good as iron sights in engaging targets in a stressful environment. Furthermore, combat experience in Korea and WW2 has shown that well trained soldiers and accurate marksmen (as the US Army taught in those wars, and WW1) are not very effective shots past about 200 yards (180 meters). Once that distance has been closed, they begin to accrue casualties on opponents. This is from S.L.A. Marshall and the US Army. It would actually be interesting to see how that stacks up to Afghanistan and Iraq, now that ACOG sights and stuff are fairly commonly used. The corollary of that is that iron sights are still fairly practical for urban combat because combat in such close terrain usually takes place at ranges closer than 200 yards.

2) The main argument I was debating with Rhodesialund was that the idea that you need "back up iron sights in case the sight fails because <range anecdotes>" is an unconvincing argument. I've seen nothing that says that optical sights are any less hardy or sturdy than iron sights, and since I've been unfortunate enough to have my iron sights bend once (or, on my Mosin, the front sight post actually got knocked off at one point) then clearly they are all bad. I took the rather uncontroversial position that both forms of sights are equally likely to fail, which is to say that it is rather rare for an ACOG or an iron sight to "break", but it happens.

Pfft.

Just have two optics on your gun. Like G36.

e: Oh wait that means you'd need like three backup iron sights. One for each of the optics plus the gun itself.

>Jump in hole
>Optics break
>Shooty stick no good any more
>What do
>FIX BAYONETS

If you're attacking and don't have your bayonets fixed, you've already lost.

Anyway, here is what you do:



Oh no, verify your target!
Oh no, always aim properly!

Jeff Cooper knew nothing of the high speed cooldudes in the SAS who can kill men without ever laying a sight picture on them. Magic.

Pfft.

Just have two optics on your gun. Like G36.

This is true.

But a front post near the muzzle is a e s t h e t i c. Guns without them look funny.

You look funny. Because your turret isn't a n g l e d. Tanks without a n g l e s look funny. Why can't you be like Mr. Complex-Geometry-Turret.

[Purpelia]

2) The main argument I was debating with Rhodesialund was that the idea that you need "back up iron sights in case the sight fails because <range anecdotes>" is an unconvincing argument. I've seen nothing that says that optical sights are any less hardy or sturdy than iron sights, and since I've been unfortunate enough to have my iron sights bend once (or, on my Mosin, the front sight post actually got knocked off at one point) then clearly they are all bad. I took the rather uncontroversial position that both forms of sights are equally likely to fail, which is to say that it is rather rare for an ACOG or an iron sight to "break", but it happens.

I was under the impression that the idea with having both types of sights was not based on the idea that one was more or less likely to break than the other but that the probability of either one breaking (how ever unlikely) is far greater than that of both breaking. Basically if you have a sight that has a 1 in 1000 chance of breaking that's a 1 in 1000 chance that you will end up without sights. But if you have two such sights than it's a 1 in 1'000'000 chance that you are left with neither. So if there is a way to actually make this happen with a relatively unobtrusive design that won't cost a ton, why not?

[Gallia-]

2) The main argument I was debating with Rhodesialund was that the idea that you need "back up iron sights in case the sight fails because <range anecdotes>" is an unconvincing argument. I've seen nothing that says that optical sights are any less hardy or sturdy than iron sights, and since I've been unfortunate enough to have my iron sights bend once (or, on my Mosin, the front sight post actually got knocked off at one point) then clearly they are all bad. I took the rather uncontroversial position that both forms of sights are equally likely to fail, which is to say that it is rather rare for an ACOG or an iron sight to "break", but it happens.

I was under the impression that the idea with having both types of sights was not based on the idea that one was more or less likely to break than the other but that the probability of either one breaking (how ever unlikely) is far greater than that of both breaking. Basically if you have a sight that has a 1 in 1000 chance of breaking that's a 1 in 1000 chance that you will end up without sights. But if you have two such sights than it's a 1 in 1'000'000 chance that you are left with neither. So if there is a way to actually make this happen with a relatively unobtrusive design that won't cost a ton, why not?

Because it's redundant. MBUS is OK because it has the same sight radius and bore offset as a conventional pair of iron sights, but putting a pair of iron sights whose sight radius is something whopping five and change inches with a huge bore offset that makes them impractical for anything except mental masturbation.

With something like MBUS you'd remove the sight if it "breaks" (read: if you break your sight) and just use those, preferably keeping them zeroed at 300 meters or whatever your battlesight distance is. Although, that requires having "RIS" and other ~gross~ things instead of integrated optics. If you're a true player, you'd have two optics for "close encounters" and "peeping Svens", and you'd just use whichever sight you didn't break.