Yes, I am partial to irons and thought that on a nice custom, wood stock rifle, such as the ones we see here by the fine gunmakers, most of them would have irons. With the material cost for a custom iron sighted rifle and labor (low ball), say around $800, that an extra $600-700 for an integral barrel, iron sighted would be more popular. And if you look at adding quarter rib...
Given the prices of the actions in the “Action” thread, and a good stock blank, the incremental cost is small.
Are irons, like Ray, dinosaurs? Guys today want are scopes only? Customer’s want “everything” made by the gunmakers?
Comments. Thanks
Steve
‘

quote:

Are irons, like Ray, dinosaurs?

Steve, iron sights are not THAT old! :-)

I know from experience, a scope accident/falure will only happen days or miles away from a fix or replacement.

I therefore always recommend back up irons (sighted in of course).

Carry an extra scope? Not a bad idea...but one witnessed failure was the mount (lost QD lever)

Back up irons can save a hunt.

Quarter ribs are really just eye candy.

Not much I can add to the above two posts, other than I wouldn't own a gun without quality irons, I like an island rear with one shallow V and a barrel band front sight and barrel band swivel..That was figured out way before my birth, and its been working ever since....As time goes by everyone thinks a scope makes one shoot better and the more power the better and thats just BS, its just not that simple and its a crutch for lack of shooting skill at least up to about 200 yards. Thats my story and Im sticking to it! I am a dinowhat?

If I were to build a custom rifle it would have irons on it along with the qtr rib...I like eye candy. The funny thing is that I often see older customs with iron sites and scopes mounted in rings and bases that are not quick release. That has always made me wonder what the thought was there...

Understand Duane's comment, so does it come down to
function vs aesthetic vs cost??? A bit hard for me to fathom for custom rifles.
The cost to carve and finish a blank is the same for a $500 blank or a $1500 (given they both layout properly).
I just got these two. I like the first, cheap one, and will mostly like be a 458 WM but could not resist the 2nd, expensive one, for a old school 416 Rigby. So why not add an expensive integral barrel or quarter rib and action since the gunmakers price is about the same. And give the cost of a talented gunsmith, hard for me to use a nice but plain piece of wood and an NECG banded sight. Go figure....

I built for myself a stainless Remington, McMillan stock with only irons. Front is a stainless Ruger barrel band, the only SS front sight I could find, rear is Williams peep. 6.5x47 Lapua Van Horn (where I work, I made the blank) SS barrel.
Where I hunt in Texas the range can be really short, under 15 yards and a scope doesn’t work. Have used the peeps I now prefer it to about 100.

Mark

I find that 75% of guys want irons on their custom rifles. Not integral quarter ribs; those cost, but a set of Recknagel banded front and 3 leaf express rear, they want. Now, few of them will actually use them; they all use scopes. Just for looks.
And no, irons are not just as accurate as a scope; especially for clients at an advancing age. Now, on a Moose, that thesis is probably true. Try it on prairie dogs and it might not work so well.

dpcd, thanks for the input. Maybe you and Duane are right. Guys want the irons but but do not want to hunt with them and so why spend the extra money?
I do not know what one of your wood stock rifles sell for but I have seen some of Duane listed for 12-15k and would think why not put a few extra pennies into the components, but maybe guys that put out that kind of dinero just do not appreciate irons?
I almost feel like if we gave away integral barrels (which is where they are priced at] nobody will take them

For the field, I prefer a backup scope.

I can't use iron sights any more if I wanted (or shoot my bow at long distances). Regardless, in rifles that are used in those distances I prefer a red dot anyway.

My 3-7-5 H&H and 416 Rigby both have iron sights but I have backup scopes for those.

For all others- no irons, just a second scope.

I had a ring break in December '20 on my second ibex in Spain (300 Win). I missed 3 times and when we went to recheck my rifle I was 4" high at 200. I changed nothing on the scope I just shot the remaining two ibex holding low. When I got home I figured out the Conetrol rear ring had split. Back up irons would have been useless in the mountains. I replaced the Conetrol rings and bases with Warne and bought a second scope.

Now, I have back up scopes for all my rifles- sighted in on return to zero bases. 100% interchangeable.

For the life of me I don't understand why one would bring just a backup scope and not one in rings and already sighted in- you'd also have an extra two levers. That's just plain stupid. (I'd rather bring a couple-three torx wrenches than levers anyway- not a fan).

The worst failure I've ever had was on a wooden stocked Pre war mod 70 on a lion hunt in '18. The stock dried out in Zim after a week and was 4" low and 4" left at 50 y. Thank God I had my synthetic stocked 300 Win to shoot the lion. I put that 3-7-5 back into its Echols Legend (Alaska) synthetic stock when I returned to Zim this past April and it's going again to the peninsula next month for brown bear.

I won't hunt anything important in wood any more- like the ring failure, all it takes is one fuck up for me. Yup all my hunting rifles also have a second synthetic/travel stock in addition to the second mounted and zeroed scope. My 500 Nitro the exception.

You'll find darn few of my (Big rifles, anyway) without iron sights.

I'm guessing over 50% "little rifles" I've done have irons. A failure of scope or mount is still a PIA even on a whitetail hunt

Now the issue of QD scopes mounts....I you'really gonna do it, the Suhler claw mount is still the Very best choice. I really try to talk the guy who is actually going after DG to bite the bullet and spend the bucks.

Plains game...Well... most likely you won't need the irons in a split second...Other "semi QD" systems are OK here in my opinion.

I think the gunmaker has to keep the client's best interets in mind and accurately desribe the options

Of course, there many an experienced hunter that knows exacly he wants based on years of his/her personal eperience....that's what gets installed!

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
You'll find darn few of my (Big rifles, anyway) without iron sights.

I'm guessing over 50% "little rifles" I've done have irons. A failure of scope or mount is still a PIA even on a whitetail hunt

Now the issue of QD scopes mounts....I you'really gonna do it, the Suhler claw mount is still the Very best choice. I really try to talk the guy who is actually going after DG to bite the bullet and spend the bucks.

Plains game...Well... most likely you won't need the irons in a split second...Other "semi QD" systems are OK here in my opinion.

I think the gunmaker has to keep the client's best interets in mind and accurately desribe the options

Duane. Not gonna disagree- I just can't use em. My last safari I did it all from ele to bushbuck with my 500 and a red dot.

And I sure as shit ain't gonna build a 3-7-5, 416, 458 or whatever without irons. They just won't be sighted in . For long distance or any hunts though it'd be irresponsible for me to even try.

Again- one fuck up is all it takes and I'll throw it in the trash. I used to collect Kleinguenthers until I cycled a round at a whitetail and it didn't pick up the cartridge. Sold ALL of them and started an obsession with Pre War Mod 70s.

ps I don't shoot whitetails anymore- I only hunt them now.......with a bow.

Steve, that 2nd blank is a stunner! I usually like Marblecake, but that blank is special.

The complication no-one has mentioned is that, if the stock is built right for scoped use, you can't get your head down low enough for the irons.
So by putting irons on, you are compromising your best natural hold for your primary sighting system, unless you make those irons retractable. And by the time you have made them retractable, they are probably no more reliable than a quality scope in a good set of non-QD rings.

That said, I like the looks of irons, and my short-range hunting rifle has backup irons under a 2-7 scope, but no QD rings. As far as I am concerned, if the scope fails, I will want to check the zero on the irons before continuing the hunt.
My long-range rifle has has no irons and the scope rings are welded to the bases, and the bases are welded to the receiver.
My .22 (which is primarily a range toy) has a scope only, and all my other rifles have irons only.
For a DG rifle, I still believe a ghost ring is just about the best possible choice. A red dot may be better when it's working, and I guess there are some on the market now that are reliable enough to stake one's life on, but there's no getting around it, they are horribly ugly.

I have mentioned this before on this forum. Some years ago on the way to a shooting weekend I was in a pretty severe car accident. Apparently I was very lucky to survive my injuries and it was two years before I could walk un-aided. My friend was not so lucky. There were seven rifles in the boot of the car, all in padded bags and with a mix of irons and scopes. Two stocks were broken, two sets of iron sights were bent. Not one scope was damaged or had even shifted zero.

I know I have a lot less experience than many guys here, but I have never had problems with a reasonably decent quality scope that wasn't caused by the mounts. Have had mount issues on four rifles, and have broken a number of extremely cheap scopes on springer air rifles.

Sounds like 50-75% of custom rifles have irons. But must be either the cost or most guys really do not care about the eye-candy aspect of a nice q-rib or integral barrel. Oh well.
Peter, yes, it is a compromise. We split the difference between the iron and scope height with the stock pattern, leaning more for iron sighted than scope. So scrunch a bit with irons and raise a bit with the scope goes pretty quick.

Biebs,
the steel to go along with the fancy blank. Trying for something different.
Even though my eyes are going, still pretty good at a consistent "fuzzy". So old school 416 Rigby, iron sighted only, military trigger, flag safety, thumb cut, and with the "eye-candy" integral barrel and blingy stock. Never to old

I build my gun stocks for irons and add a scope usually in Talleys QDs on surface ground actions to faciltate return to zero...Being raised on low comb mod. 70 bless the Lord, I have no problem at all shooting scopes with low comb stocks, most folks just drank the koolaid on that one IMO.....All the folks that pick up one of my rifles say Not all that shabbly it works for both irons and scope, many of them were gunsmiths and many were PHs..

I would rather have the stock designed for scope use..

I HATE low comb stocks designed for iron sighs... its just outdated!!


Have not had a scope fail in 20 years.. why should I have to shoot with a stock designed for open sights?

Get the scope mounted as low as possible in QD rings and have some iron sights fitted. They look nice, and in 99,999% of the times not needed.

The comb height is pretty well limited to collision with cocking piece. From there the heel will usually have some drop to fit a normal proportioned person

Quasimoto might find the zero drop or raised heel comfortable. Admittely if shot ONLY in the prone position such configuraion can have some merit.

Point is that almost everyone tends to stretch forward to get a full field of view thru the scope, and he will NOT have a solid "cheek weld".

Take that scope off and the same shooter will find a comortable cheek spot and it will almost always be further back. The heel drop plus a better cheek weld just automatically makes some compensaion for the lower sighting line.

There are still a number of us old gray headed curmudgeons that learned to shoot with mod. 70s back in the low comb iron sight days, then Bill Weaver graced us with 2.5X, 3X, and 4X Weavers, and we installed them and shot game with abandon and continued to do so..a scope on a low comb rifle is not the end of all eternity, it just another way to skin a cat and listen to the rambling of Nortman and the inexperienced shooters of today who have drank the koolaid!

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
There are still a number of us old gray headed curmudgeons that learned to shoot with mod. 70s back in the low comb iron sight days, then Bill Weaver graced us with 2.5X, 3X, and 4X Weavers, and we installed them and shot game with abandon and continued to do so..a scope on a low comb rifle is not the end of all eternity, it just another way to skin a cat and listen to the rambling of Nortman and the inexperienced shooters of today who have drank the koolaid!

I didn't say it couldn't be done. Have done it myself, many times, and no doubt will continue to do so.
I just said it's a compromise. Depending on the scope, mounts and rifle, it may not be a particularly large compromise.
Years ago I mounted a scope on my Rossi Win '92 copy. Had to mount it about 2.5" over bore line to get the cases to eject cleanly. It worked, and I could still shoot it just as well when taking my time, but for quick shots it was definitely nowhere near as instinctive. Eventually replaced the scope with a home-made ghost-ring receiver peep sight.

I know it's a very specialist field, and the rifles used are on the whole not the type of rifles being discussed here, but the other day I attended an interesting training event aimed at police-type sniping. One of the exercises was a wait-and-shoot exercise such as could easily be encountered in a hostage situation. Shooter has to remain at the ready for an extended period, but be ready to fire almost instantly at the signal. In this case, the wait was somewhere between half an hour and two hours and the shot had to fall within two seconds of the signal, but in real life the wait could be considerably longer. Try and do that with a badly-fitting stock sometime...

Peter said

quote:

The complication no-one has mentioned is that, if the stock is built right for scoped use, you can't get your head down low enough for the irons.

Sometimes this can be avoided with proper planning and the line of sight will be the same for the irons and the scope. The maker of my .405 DR used the technique of milling QD notches and grooves into the rear rib as can be seen in these pictures. He also made extras and sold them to other gun makers. The QD used is Talley, including the Talley peep sight.




When done with proper planning all sight pictures are through the fixed rear express sight blade. This arrangement works great for me as it is much as natural as a properly fit shotgun . No matter which sight you have on, it is the same to mount and shoot.

I actually prefer the express sight or the peep, but the scope can come in handy at times. Such as when sitting in a blind 100+ yards from where the game may present itself.

Its a good conversation, but in the real world each of us must find what works for us and nobody else, too many varibles for all stocks to work the same for all, but I will add that imo one can adjust to about any stock fit, if he shoots that gun a bit to a bit more...same with trigger pulls and all these things that are claimed to be not workable..I remember the story of the poacher in Africa who was famous, his rifle was a ruined H&H with a crutch cut in half and wired to the missing butt..He was reputed to be a fine shot, true story?, don't know but its supposed to be but Ive seen Mexican vaqueros in Mexico that come close and a few im far west Texas..Its the shutins, guides, packers that don't waste their time on AR like we do that don't need all the bells and whistles to kill an animal or enemy..

The comb is limited by the bolt throw so thats a given and overlooked by many and its low..so they jack up the butt and pull their head back I suppose, and that in itself is shameful as it drives recoil straight back into the shoulder, the fabled straight stock falicy.. All this I see on the classice US custom rifle design for those who drank the koolaid. but I will defend with my life your right to do so.

Im of the old school and "out dated" English style rifle with a couple of additions or substractions perhaps that fits my needs...but then hell Ive been acused of being outdated so I make the best of it while I can..and no I don't like black rifles, roll over cheek peices, Weatherby stock, long forends, and high combs, not fond of recoil pads but all these things do serve a purpose for the koolaiders.

Happy Thanksgiving Ray!
You are in fine form.

You guys that demand back up irons. Has anyone had to use them?

Absolutly, Ive felt like I had/needed to use them, but mosly I chose to use them, as rifles carry so easy and have pointability! I hunt with irons on many ocassions, and carry a scope as an option or emergency..Quite the opposite as most..

I could say the same about scopes, all this is determine by circumstances with me..

Ive needed a scope, and Ive needed iron sights, I could have made do with scopes and I could have made do with irons, Im very flexible on the posters question..

Ah yes, straight recoil. I was waiting for that to pop up.

Again, a valuable tool for a specific job that got applied where it shouldn't have.
It makes big calibers even more brutal to shoot, and in my opinion shouldn't be used on them.

On the other hand, on calibers with light recoil, it reduces muzzle climb, which is good for two things:
On "black rifles" (or any other select-fire rifle) it keeps follow-up shots, especially in bursts of full auto on target better.

On other rifles, it allows the shooter to more easily retain his sight picture, especially with higher-magnification scopes. Again, this isn't universally useful, but for some types of shooting it is almost non-negotiable. The currently-popular sport of "precision rifle" is a good example, and the real reason why the competitive calibers in that sport have kept getting smaller.

I came in second place in the National Muzzleloader association double rifle competition, and beat a lot of super experienced shooter.

I would not feel comfertable shooting a deer with the open sights of my interarms Whitworth .375 at 100 yards. With a scope I would murder one at 300 yards.

I’ve also had failures with two different rifles, neither with open sight. Banged up a scope, and the second a 6 year old with a screwdriver lost the lever on qd rings.

I’ll never put together a rifle without open sights. They look cool, and maybe at some point I’ll get better shooting them.

Based on your post, I suspect you could shoot quite well with irons if you gave them a better chance, like a little practice and a desire to shoot them well, its mostly trigger pull, and you don't have that magnified "wabble" that comes with a scope, the more xs you have in power the harder it is to stablize a scope, and up to 1oo or more yards, you should be able to shoot irons more accruately than a scope, I can do that, and Ive won money shooting irons against scopes..The receiver sight being the most acccurate these days of late, due to age I suspect..but the shallow V still serves me well enough. Beyound 150 yards I prefer a scope hands down, but an elk at 300 with irons is much easier than a deer at 300 with irons..ya got a bigger set of lungs and heart..

I agree with your post Peter on stright stocks etc, under those conditions your spot on I suspect...

quote:

Where I hunt in Texas the range can be really short, under 15 yards and a scope doesn’t work..

Complete BS A proper scope and one that is properly mounted.

With proper practice.

Can work very well at very short ranges.

If you can't get on target at short ranges with a 1.5 or 2x scope at very short ranges.

It is not properly mounted and or you don't have enough practice with the combination

I have been practicing with my Ruger 77 put together by forum member dpcd using a NECG peep sight system. Only change I made was to a larger front partridge sight. It is nice to remember what a rifle should feel like in hand! And getting better with that system.

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:
You guys that demand back up irons. Has anyone had to use them?

Darn right! A scope is like a cordless drill It will only fail when on top of a shaky ladder! A scope will give trouble only when on a horse back trip miles from town.


Happened to me and happened to my hunting buddy a few years later. My case...a lost QD lever...in his case a fall that broke off the objective.

Irons saved the hunt in both cases

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:
You guys that demand back up irons. Has anyone had to use them?

I was on a tuskless elephant hunt with a 450 Rigby (made by Duane Wiebe). Shot the first one with the scope on low power. Shot another one a couple days later with iron sights out of a herd (frontal brain shot at 25 yards). Didn't use the scope, because it restricted my field of view - we were surrounded by pissed off elephants and I wanted/needed to see what was going on.

There is definatly a place for bothj scope and irons, learn to use both and you will never have to sit in camp twiddling your thumbs..Ive seen a lot of scoped fail for a number of reasons, technical and human error (even stupidity), but whatever it happens and often..irons only fail when someone contrives a supposed reason for their failure, and if they do, again it was poor installation or choice of irons..

With around 50 years of competitive shooting experience with a service rifle, using an aperture rear sight is second nature for me, which is why my "heavy" rifle, my .505 SRE, is equipped only with aperture sights.

With it, I have taken three elephants, five Cape buffalo and a Record Book rhino. In my opinion, for fast and furious close range shooting, it can't be beat.

Far from an expert but...

A stock really can't be built perfectly ideal for both, so it needs to be optimized for one or the other.

A rifle wearing only Irons is the most beautiful and pure form possible, period! Nothing looks as good as a well done open sight rifle. Without a big ol' scope casting a huge shadow over everything, the clean shape of the rifle is on full display. The handling and feel is so much better. A scoped rifle always wants to roll left or right in your hands. Iron sight rifles balance better when carrying or shooting offhand. I enjoy hunting with Iron sights whenever conditions allow it. Its a shame most people are scared to order an Iron sight only rifle from a custom maker. Much more craftsmanship goes into the fitting, shaping, and setup of Irons than for a scope mount. It adds significantly to the "custom built" appeal.

Having said that, in many situations, a scope is a real necessity. No way around it! A scope helps us shoot better, farther, and in low light. But when I see rifles with FIXED scope mounts and Iron sights added for decoration, it looks ridiculous to me. If making the choice for a scope only, having a spare or backup scope zeroed in & ready to go in QD/QR mounts sounds smart. Maybe overkill for hunts close to home. Probably a great idea for out of state hunts or when you draw a tag for something special. I might try that some time.

As usual, just throwing out my 2 cents...