I have a Sako 375 Deluxe that has no sights. I am wondering if I should have sights aded to the rifle before I go over next June? I have a Leupold VXIII 1.5-5 with German #4 reticle mounted on the rifle.

Sights could be helpful in at least 2 situations.

1. Your scope breaks. No matter how good it is, it could get broken, and mishaps occur.

2. You have to go into thick stuff after a buffalo or a cat with a bullet in him.

Most other have more experience than I.

I would say however, if everything fits, there is no downside to having quick release scope rings and iron back-ups. That can be the difference between hunting or not - scope goes down, too much rain for a scope, etc.

A lot of (most) modern rifles are stocked for use with a scope, and use of open sights is at best questionable. Whether this is the case for you not only depends on your stock, but also how far down you are willing to get on your rifle. I personally have never found a modern stock made for scope useage, which would allow me to see open sights well. If that is the case for you, open sights would be an exercise in futility, and you would be much better off with a sighted-in backup scope in QD mounts.
- mike

Every rifle I own has irons/QD scope (223-416). I shoot both sighting systems often. Perhaps I have been lucky, but I have never had this issue. I do mount my scopes as low as possible, though.

Not trying to start an argument or say I am more knowledgable. Just my experience.

IMO rifle sights on a dangerous game rifle is not an option. They must be there. Plains game is quite different but stll recommended. I have done it both ways with plains game but always took a spare scope. That may not be as easy today since it is believed to be banned from carry on luggage.I perefer the ghost ring and use Brockman's pop-up peep on all my DG rifles.

mho makes a very good point, but, alot depends on your physionomy. Some people don't seem to have a great problem being lined up with their iron sights and are still able to comfortably use their scopes. For some it may be a stretch and perhaps it will never be perfect, but iron sights are always there.

The issue of whether the rifle fits the shooter is separate from whether the rifle would benefit from iron sights (and quick release rings).

Better to have a rifle that fits, AND iron sights (with quick release rings) than not.

Ezra

I'm not a traditionalist and so my answer is no it is not a requirement to have open sights as well as a scope on your rifle. I only have one rifle I have taken to Africa that had iron sights as well as a scope. Having said that though as pointed out there is no real down side to having the the back up irons. Personally though I think you'd be better off to put your money in a back up scope rather than perhaps adding irons. A sighted in back up scope could save your safari. Open sights will not replace a good quality scope in any situation.

Mark

I have had scopes fail on two occaisons while on safari. Both were on 375's and both were Leupold 1.5x5 VXIII's. In both cases I had a spare scope and a spare rifle. The rifle also had Irons. In the case of proper stock fit for scope and use of irons I have found the Irons only need to be slightly higher than normal to be very effective and my rifles are so equipped.

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Open sights will not replace a good quality scope in any situation.

Mark

I must disagree completely with this remark. If you stalk very close to game, or if you are charged, a scope is a distinct disadvantage. If you shoot game at range, a scope is a distinct advantage.

Ezra4570,

I gave the iron sights off of my 375 to my PH in Zim a few years ago and have never replaced them. The scope could break so I take spare rings, bases and a spare scope just in case.

If you like iron sights add them if not take a spare scope and rings and change if needed.

My spare scope has never been needed in four trips.

BigB

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Open sights will not replace a good quality scope in any situation.

Mark

I must disagree completely with this remark. If you stalk very close to game, or if you are charged, a scope is a distinct disadvantage. If you shoot game at range, a scope is a distinct advantage.

I agree with that 500g. But I would add that a reasonable power scope is also a distinct advantage in picking a shooting lane through thick brush, and any decent scope is an advantage in low light conditions.

Both of these situations were clear to me on my last trip. In a couple situations hunting buffalo, I was left wanting with my fixed 3x and 1-4x luepy's.

Cheers,
Canuck

You can answer this question yourself by taking this test.

Set up a target at "close range" (I use anyting from 10-20 yards )take a snap shot using your scoped rifle and then using the same rifle with the iron sights. Do this a few times and check results ( results may vary between shooter and between guns fired by shooter due to set up ).

BTW for me, I am faster shooting a scoped rifle with both eyes open at short range than I am with open sights.

Again your results will vary.

I see no downside to sights and some potential benefits.

I took a backup scope with me on my last trip, but I never carried it (or had it carried for me) when we were on a stalk. To be honest, the spare scope stayed in camp. We were often several hours away from the vehicle and/or camp. Had I dropped my rifle or in any way damaged my scope, having sights on my rifle would have allowed me to keep going.

I also agree with 500 grains that there are times when sights are a distinct advantage, assuming that time was taken to learn how to shoot with them.

Doug

quote:

Originally posted by CBNHNTR:
You can answer this question yourself by taking this test.

Set up a target at "close range" (I use anyting from 10-20 yards )take a snap shot using your scoped rifle and then using the same rifle with the iron sights. Do this a few times and check results ( results may vary between shooter and between guns fired by shooter due to set up ).

BTW for me, I am faster shooting a scoped rifle with both eyes open at short range than I am with open sights.

Again your results will vary.

That test will not simulate the pressure of an animal capable of killing you charging you at close range.

(edited to add)

Try it with a target that will hit you coming fast and see what the results are. As long as it can be done safely - ie where the bullet goes. This will bring out any fumbles but still lacks the realism.

Anyone that claims they can find a charging elephant in thick jess at 10 yards as well in a scope as with open sights has some bragging to do.

I guess that why every PH doesn't have a scope. They want that extra risk in following up dangerous game!

A few years ago, I read tests results on rapid target acquisition on charge/moving game by I think Phil Shoemaker (who posts here from time to time as 458Win I believe). Anyhow if I remember correctly, his tests showed that with a low power scope vs iron sights, the scope won hands down in both speed and accuracy. I still want irons on my rifle though. jorge

quote:

1. Your scope breaks. No matter how good it is, it could get broken, and mishaps occur.

I have always bought this view, a rifle without any sights is waaaay less useful that one with iron sights...as 500grains says, scopes can and do have problems.
On bigger rifles from 9,3 up, I personally would never contemplate a sightless barrel...

Most American shooters of the current generation have grown up using a scope sight and have little or no experience in using iron sights. It takes some practice to use iron sights to their full advantage. With practice I also believe that irons are better in the jesse and have no significant disadvantage out to 100-125 yards over the scope sight.

465H&H

Since I'm being quoted I feel an AR pissing match coming on so let me rephrase and say that for me and I believe for the vast majority of modern day shooters we are always better off with a good quality scope. Most of us don't shoot iron sights much and frankly even if a guy is a wizz with irons you are still dealing with the low light situation in heavy brush where irons are supposed to be better. When a PH shows me a patch of grey or black at 20 yards in heavy shadow I want to be very sure what part of the animal I'm looking at and a scope just helps a great deal with that.

Now if we are talking about using an iron sighted rifle and getting so close to an animal that you can smell its breath as being what turns your crank well please have at it. This is a differnt subject and the answer in my opinion to the original question is still no that you don't NEED iron sights.

I of course carry my spare cartridges in a Uncle Mike's buttstock carrier and use almost exclusively synthetic and SS for my rifles which in itself makes me a heretic of sorts.

Mark

quote:

When a PH shows me a patch of grey or black at 20 yards in heavy shadow I want to be very sure what part of the animal I'm looking at and a scope just helps a great deal with that.

Mark- This is exactly what happened to me in Zambia this year. The Dugga boy we were tracking we found 20 yards from us in dark shadows caused by the brush he was lying in. My PH could see him clearly with his 10 power binocs but with my scope turned down to 1.5, I could not see him very well. Open/iron sights would not have helped. Having said that, I think having open sights on your rifle is a beneficial back up system providing lighting conditions are good and the shot is 50 yards or less. Just MHO.

John

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
A few years ago, I read tests results on rapid target acquisition on charge/moving game by I think Phil Shoemaker (who posts here from time to time as 458Win I believe). Anyhow if I remember correctly, his tests showed that with a low power scope vs iron sights, the scope won hands down in both speed and accuracy. I still want irons on my rifle though. jorge

Paper, lab testing is not the same as trying to save your hide.

One should just fork up the $150 and put on open sights whether one ever uses them or not.

I just returned 2 weeks ago from my first trip to Africa. I took a CZ American (no iron sights) in 9.3 x 62 for my plains game with a Burris Safari mounted on it and a Nikon 3x9 as a back-up scope. I also took a 470 double for my DG....no scope...just irons. I never had to change a thing.
For my next trip...yep..gotta go back...I'm taking a Ruger Magnum in 375 H&H with irons (changed the front sight to a NECG) and a VX III 1.5 x 5 in Warne QD mounts. I've checked the Warne....they return to EXACTLY the same zero when removed and re-mounted. I will take a spare scope, however.

Gary

Will: You are correct sir, but the point of the article was that low X scopes were just as good or better than irons. I'm not saying I agree with it, but maybe Phil will chime in with the "rest of the story".jorge

On the bear tracker course i did 3 years ago, the fit of scope and stock versus how you put the rifle up was emphazied wery much.

The rifle and scope felt perfect aligned when you put the rifle up and snapped of 2-3 shots so fast as you got them.
We shot on ranges from 5 meters to 100 meters, noone removed the scopesights through the course whichs demanded 300 rounds and .

but if you doesnt have open sights on a rifle a 1-4 x scope or a aimpoint or docter red dot sight is very fine closeup shooting. But then its the feeling of iron sights on the rifle which makes me feel asure if something fubar up the scope .

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
Will: You are correct sir, but the point of the article was that low X scopes were just as good or better than irons. I'm not saying I agree with it, but maybe Phil will chime in with the "rest of the story".jorge

Jorge,

Not disagreeing with you but hunting up close with a scope gives me the willies.

This probably, as usual, boils down to using the option that one is most comfortable with.

This question is very suggestive as it is difficult for one person to gauge how another person processes visual information.

Pressure is also subjective as people react to external stimulus differently.

I understand the use of scoped sights at close range is counter intuitive but for some people a scope is faster than open sights, even at close range.

But this is just opinion (you know what that is worth ) everyone should consider what is best for them.

Just FYI, even though I know that I am faster with my scope on, I still have very good iron sights on my .375 in a Q.D. mount, as was recommended by my PH.

A few more cents here: IMO any firearm that might be used against dangerous game must wear iron sights. I've nothing against scopes, outraging my Namibian PH/game farm owner friend by scoping (Leupold 4X compact) a .35 caliber double. At the same time I've a falling block in .300 H&H flanged that only wears a scope. The argument: you musn't use a rifle that lacks the full capability to keep you hunting or following up wounded dangerous game. A broken scope mount could do just that if you don't have irons.
Regards

I look at it this way...Sights are better then no sights...If your scope breaks or better if a screw snaps, irons will get you out of the jam..

Mike

As a person who has always used scopes on rifles, I learned a lesson with my Ruger #1B (no sights on this model) while hunting in the rain and snow one year. The scope got coated immediately after I flipped up the Storm King lens protectors. If I'd had QRs on the scope and irons, I could have taken shots at three bull elk. Now, I have irons on most of my rifles used for big game.
Oh, and I learned to use irons as a kid, just didn't want to be "behind the times" after I got in my twenties. As they say "with age comes wisdom."

I'm having trouble figuring which side of this fence I'm on.

Just before going to Zimbabwe for buffalo I found the front ring screwed up on my scoped Sako Model 75 Deluxe, 375 H&H. It has iron sights. I had the scope remounted. Had I found that problem, or worse, three days later I would have taken the scope off and hunted with iron sights.

As it was, everything worked well and I was aggravated because I could see my front sight in my scope picture at low magnifications. I wished it wasn't there. But, I don't plan on removing it. If the gun had come without iron sights I probably would not add them.

How's that for a mixed-up opinion?

At something charging from 10 yards, I'm probably going to be firing like I was holding a shotgun. I don't aim. I point.

Though I can see the front sight in the scope it never seemd to bother me or interfere with shooting.

If you are "close enough" most times you can drop a charging elephant but there are times when close doesn't cut it and your shotgun instinct better be pretty good, i.e., knowing where the brain is and hitting it.

Have to agree with 500 grains and Will. In the deep jesse and in shadows at close distances, the scope would be a hinderance--at least for me. All my rifles except the 600 have removable scopes and iron sights, but on my last ele hunt this summer I learned to shoot with iron sights on the advice of my PH. Best advice I have ever taken. I'm not sure how I would have performed with the scope even at 1.5x. Didn't want to test this theory either,

Dak

Since I am as close to the unluckiest guy I know, I am a firm believer in the motto: "its better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it." Therefore, please put me in the pro-sights camp. They'll always be there in a pinch and further, I really like the way they balance out a rifle. The last rifle I put together had sight installed on it and all subsequent rifles I assemble will have them too.

--------------------

quote:

Now if we are talking about using an iron sighted rifle and getting so close to an animal that you can smell its breath

If all the stories I've read on here are true, the above quote may be true for memebers of this forum. And, if such is the case, a bead may be even more preferable to open sights!

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:


Now if we are talking about using an iron sighted rifle and getting so close to an animal that you can smell its breath as being what turns your crank well please have at it. This is a differnt subject and the answer in my opinion to the original question is still no that you don't NEED iron sights.

If you don't get close enough for iron sights, then perhaps you need a different PH.

Never had them on my African hunting rifles, and never needed them.

Trying to shoot at ANYTHING hidden in the bush without a scope is an exercise in futility.

And placing your first shot in the right place guarantees you won't have any problems later on.

Ever since I started hunting in Africa in 1982, I have never had to use open sights. Hence all my African rifles are without them.

IF something does go wrong, and I have to search for a wounded animal in thick bush - as we have, on several occasions - I would have to do a "point and shoot" shotgun style. As I don't believe one would have the chance to aim in one of those circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:


Now if we are talking about using an iron sighted rifle and getting so close to an animal that you can smell its breath as being what turns your crank well please have at it. This is a differnt subject and the answer in my opinion to the original question is still no that you don't NEED iron sights.

If you don't get close enough for iron sights, then perhaps you need a different PH.

All opinions respected, in my mind no rifle is finished till everything has been installed! Quality iron sights are one of the things that needs to be installed before your rifle becomes a hunting rifle!

In close quarters with a BITE BACK, is not the only reason to have good Irons on a rifle. I have posted this here before, but for those who didn't see it, her it is !

I was hunting the Pueblo Canyon area of New Mexico, a wilderness area where foot travel is the only thing allowed. I spotted a trophy muledeer of a life time, about a half mile away at the head of a canyon. To get within range of the deer, I had to skirt a giant rock outcropping on a thin ledge. In doing so, I lost my ballance, with the rifle in my canyon side hand. I was about to fall over the side of a wall that was stroun with rocks down about 20 feet, then streight down for another 100 feet. My choice was either let the rifle fall, or go with it! As much as it pains me today 30 yrs later, I turned loose of my prized Mannlicher Shoenauer MCA 1961 .243 rifle, to regain my ballance. The rifle hung up on the rocks just shy of the 100 foot drop. I recovered the rifle, skinned up considerably, but the damage was to the Redfield 6x40 scope, with the objective bell looking down at the rear sight, rather than the way the barrel was pointing. I looked back to see the deer was still bedded on a slope. I quickly removed the scope, and checked the irons which weren't bent. I stalked to within about 150 yds of that deer, and popped him right through the boiler room.
My camp was about ten miles away where I had a spare rifle, but it was four o:clock in the afternoon, and ten miles of foot travel was out of the question. Does anyone here think that deer would still be there when I got back with another scoped rifle? That deer is on my wall today, simply because I had Iron sights, and knew how to use them, no other reason!

Many times in Africa you may be a long way from your spare scope or scoped rifle, when a 50" buffalo is spotted, and your scope is dropped, and broken if that happens what do you do, use someone elses rifle, or let him go! If you have irons, use your own rifle. If you have to go into the weeds with pissed off buff, that broken, or even unbroken, scope is in the way, for even instictive shooting!

.................Just my .02 cents

I wonder if 'instinctive' shotgun type shooting for example on a charging cape buffalo would be enough if the rifle has no iron sights. Only recently there was a report of a PH shooting and only just missing the brain and as a result got into trouble.

Of course it is usually the PH that gets into these situations and that is probably why I have never seen a PH's dangerous game rifle with a scope (as has been said before on this thread). Probably sums up the debate IMO.