Why the hell is every shooting game nowadays feature no iron sights? Games like Counter Strike, Rainbow Six, Halo, Fear, Bioshock, Soldier's Front, Killzone, and every other shooter out there. I mean yes, they do in a way since you SEE them on the gun. But you never actually use them. Aiming down the sights is essential to using a firearm. There is no magical crosshairs in real life, you have to use the gun sight, be it a iron sight, holosight, scope, etc.
If your not familiar with sights, take a look at this link : En.wikipedia.org
"The term is also used in video games, specifically first-person shooters, to describe a system where the player's aim is not assisted by on-screen crosshairs (also known as a reticle) and thus gunfire must be aimed using the weapon models' iron sights."
Games that feature this correctly are seen in the Call of Duty series, Red Orchestra, Battlefield 2, Operation Flashpoint, Armed Assault, and quite a few dozen more.
In a way Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter series, and Gears of War also feature iron sight based system. Although its still uses a crosshair, it only appears when have your character aim. Thus making it more realistic and accurate.
People get the idea of sights, but hate it becaue they feel that its a burden just to press right click (or for consoles, a left trigger pull)
They think that a tactical shooter is something thats military based and you die in a few shots. 
Rainbow Six benefitted to this myth greatly. That game featured no iron sight based aiming and just a crosshair, while combat was quite realistic.
Now with that mind set, thats what people view "realism" as.
<-----------
People also think iron sights slow down the action and make it slow paced. Even the developers, like the ones for Rainbow Six admitted that. But they are WRONG! Iron sights make the game more exciting becuase you never know when an enemy will pop out and you might be shot becuase your weapon is not ready to shoot.
Okay for example your palying a generic multiplayer fps. Your sprinting down a corridor, a enemy pops from the side and is only a few movements away from your crosshair, you take a burst and take him down. Whats the fun in that?
Now with a game with sights imagine the same situation, the enemy then pops out, you pull your sights up immediately but you were too slow as your already been shot.
You solve this mistake by carefully walking and aiming with the sights ready, this time if an enemy pops out hopefuly he will make your mistake and your ready to pick him off.
Thats just one of the few benefits of iron sight based shooters.
Try games like Battlefield 2, 2142, and Call Of Duty 2-4. These games are proof that iron sight based aiming doesent always mean its slow paced. As a matter of fact these games are fast paced, and have you at attention as you would when your playing a game like Unreal Thournament.
In conclution, every gun shooting game should feature iron sight based aiming....except for thouse bunny hopping rocket totting ones.
You know... I totally agree with you about this if it's a game that has real guns, or trys to portray a real sense of gun usage.
I liked battlefield 2 a lot better than 1942 for that reason.
I dont think they fit BF42s extremly fast placed cartoony gameplay.
Future soldiers include cross hairs
Hey man, I'm in complete agreement. Crosshairs are fine in some types of game play, but sometimes it's just too simple. When you want realism.....you want iron sights.