12 Replies Latest reply: May 22, 2013 2:09 PM by CurliestRogue0 RSS

Actually prefer irons?

CurliestRogue0

Saw a post on another site from a guy claiming to actually prefer irons to any of the sight attachments.  I totally get the argument that a sight is not a good use of a CaC slot to some people, but that's not the same as prefering irons to reflex/acog/etc in and of themselves. 

 

For example, personally, I think the reflex is better than any irons in just about any circumstance, but that doesn't mean I run reflex on every weapon.  If the irons are on the particular weap are decent, I'm just as likely to use stock/quickdraw/fastmags or even a suppressor instead of the sight. 

 

Thoughts/opinions?

  • Re: Actually prefer irons?
    Desertnam

    Depends on the irons. The Scar has got the best iron sights, they're clear and not obtrusive. AN-94 works fine and I like all the smg iron sights except for the mp7. If I'm using an LMG the reflex site works a treat with the stock for getting more bullets on target at a distance - I use the smiley face sites with the mk48 just too annoy people (I hope ).

    • Re: Actually prefer irons?
      CurliestRogue0

      Agree that SCAR and AN94 have very usable irons; indeed, I rarely use sight attachments on those myself).  However, I still would not make the argument that their sights were better than reflex (which to me is the most versatile sight overall).

       

      It's largely irrelevant, I realize.  The most important question is whether a given attachment (sight or otherwise) is worth its CaC slot in comparison to other attachments, not whether an attachment makes the gun better in a non-relative sense.  Still, fun to discuss.

      • Re: Actually prefer irons?
        Desertnam

        It really depends on the gun and if for you the reflex improves the guns performance. I've tried using the red dot sights on the SCAR and the An-94 and I find the Iron sights are better than the reflex. They are clearer at distance and at close to medium range, the target fills inside the iron sights.  Guns like the FAL benifit from the reflex becuase they demand more accuracy and their iron sights are a bit blocky. The Galil in the previous one is another good example - best iron sights in the game - and the commando was lethal with a reflex sight I found. When it comes to attachments the reflex is a major factor for me because it can greatly improve a gun like the LMG's and the FAL or not like the SCAR which I can put a silencer on. 

  • Re: Actually prefer irons?
    SitRepPro

    The M27 irons are pretty decent for me.

  • Re: Actually prefer irons?
    Noob_Lyncher

    I only use iron sights. The less recoil, the better.

  • Re: Actually prefer irons?
    JBurn244

    I use only iron sights. To the point where an optic feels like a waste of an attachment. Only put them on for fun usually.

  • Re: Actually prefer irons?
    riksterinto

    I've only used sight attachments to help get headshots on some of the ARs.  Otherwise I find the iron sights good enough on almost all weapons in the game.

  • Re: Actually prefer irons?
    owiseguyo

    BO1s guns had the best irons of any COD game. This game too has some good irons but guns like the MK, the M8, and the FAL almost require some form of an attachable sight.

  • Re: Actually prefer irons?
    r33k

    depends on the gun. i think the swat has great irons and i never use an attachement on it.

  • Re: Actually prefer irons?

    I rarely use sights in this game, and the iron sights for most of the guns work perfectly. Obviously the target finder is better than the iron sight, but that attachment is too cheap for me to use. In my opinion, sights are just a waste of an attachment.

  • Re: Actually prefer irons?
    COOOORY12345678

    i love how a lot of people aren't really addressing his question at all. In a perfect world i think i would almost always use reflex over iron sights, to answer your question, but it does seem pointless to waste a point on reflex when there are better options