On a separate post, Shakari raised questions about double rifles for DG (he really wants one, a new Rigby: I am betting he goes for it.). There were various comments referencing scopes, on both bolt and DR's. I have only been to Africa once, in 2007 for PG. All of my rifles have scopes, save one, a converted 30-06 mil. 1917 Enfield which has a Williams peep sight. So, I rarely shoot with open sighted rifles any more. However, I grew up shooting open sighted rifles, Savage single shot 30-30, Marlin 336 30-30, 308 Win M88, M94 Win 30-30 and did pretty well with them. What I am leading up to is this: my perception (maybe incorrect) is that the object, and perhaps required, is to get close to DG (for some species very, very close). So would not it be better to use open sights than a scope, on a DGR, assuming the hunter is proficient with open sights. Not trying to start an argument, but I hope to return to Africa someday for a buff hunt. Would use a .375 H&H Custom 98 Mauser. I am thinking shot opportunities should be 50 yds & closer. I would feel confident at making the shot at this range- or even to 100 yds if I had to, assuming shooting off sticks. I would not want to attempt a shot at longer range on a buff. Too much chance of wounding.

I see your name is olguy and assume it may mean what it says. I am 75 and wear trifocals. I have worn glasses since age of 5. I don't,nor have I ever, see iron sights as well as a scope. My last safari of the eight I have taken was about 3 years ago. All have been with scoped rifles in most cases from 375 up with one exception of an elephant taken with a Merkel Double 470. On my last trip I took an Elephant at about 20 yards with a scope sighted 416 Rigby and did not feel handicapped in the least. The scope was a 1.5 x 4 Swarovski. Probably set on 1.5x for the first shot.

I think the best approach for a dangerous game rifle, at least for a bolt action, is to go with a claw mount and then you can have both. My .416 Hoffman has such a setup, with a 1.5X5 Leupold on top, and fixed open sights underneath. The scope comes off in a few seconds, and when it goes back on, the zero is maintained.

I cannot see open sights well now, so all my rifles have fixed scopes.

My 2 375/404 rifles, which I use for all my hunting, have 2.5-8x Leupold scopes.

I have not found this to be a hinderance in the least.

I much prefer a client to shoot a scoped rifle rather than iron sights because most are going to be a lot more accurate that way and if the rifle had detatchable mounts, then so much the better.

From my experience a least, shooting well with iron sights takes a lot of practice. Personally I find I'm so used to iron sights, I can't shoot for shit with a scoped rifle.

quote:

I am thinking shot opportunities should be 50 yds & closer.

Quite often you cannot get within 50 yds. Also follow up shots as the buff is running off can be long.

Another consideration is that as you are carrying your rifle on a buffalo hunt there are often opportunities at plains game such as wildebeast or kongoni that are usually longer than 50 yd shots. Your trackers will be licking their lips and will be very disappointed if you do not obtain their dinner.

Save yourself a lot of grief and use a scope (except for elephant).

I had a hunt in Tanzania last year where a Cape Buff was about 60 yards away, but sheltered by tree limbs. I put the rifle up , and could only see black between the branches, no detail and therefore no aiming point. I turned the scope up to 5X, and could clearly see the head, horns, shoulder, etc. I killed that Buff, but know I would not have shot if I had my double with open sights at the time. Made me think twice...even at close range where aiming is not an issue, a scope allows you to see detail in poor light situations.

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
I had a hunt in Tanzania last year where a Cape Buff was about 60 yards away, but sheltered by tree limbs. I put the rifle up , and could only see black between the branches, no detail and therefore no aiming point. I turned the scope up to 5X, and could clearly see the head, horns, shoulder, etc. I killed that Buff, but know I would not have shot if I had my double with open sights at the time. Made me think twice...even at close range where aiming is not an issue, a scope allows you to see detail in poor light situations.

Agreed. I have found that leaving my scope on 2.5 or 3X works for most hunting in Africa. It allows you to pick out the branches and see a shooting lane between you and the game. If a long shot is presented and time allowed, you can turn it up to 5X. If following up, turn it down to 1.5X and it allows you to see right up to the muzzle.

It seems strange to me that people don't realize that a 1x scope is the same as iron sights but with a crosshair. Much easier than lining up front and rear sights. A 1.5x scope is not that much different but you still get the crosshairs. For people that do a lot of shotgun shooting and instinctive shooting open sights this is great however I think that most folks that head out do not do enough practicing or don't shoot instinctivily well enough to use open sights without getting freaked out. Those of you that shoot enough should know what I mean.

I don't think that claw mounts make much sense. The stock either fits you with the iron sights or fits you with the scope. Seldom with both.

I notice a lot of PHs recommend scopes for "everything but elephants." I shot my one and only elephant with a 1.5X scope setting which I think, if you leave your eyes open, is just like iron sights except that everything is in the same sight plane and the aiming point is more precise. So it's faster and more accurate. I suspect it's better even if you get charged.

In Africa I left my DG scope setting on 1.5X and my .300 Magnum scope setting on 4X the whole trip.

Zimbabwe; I'm 73; grey in the muzzle & long in the tooth- but I still have good eyesight & reflexes. I do wear glasses for reading most of the time. My OD says I have the eyes of a twenty something. Wish my sex life was as good! I can still line the irons up well with the target. Some have overlooked my comment , in orig post, about proficiency wi iron sights. Shakari, you are obviously proficient wi irons. If I were to rely on irons I would certainly practice, practice, practice before my arrival. Dr. Mike- I am an instinctive shooter and do a whole lot of duck shooting, with both autos & doubles. I do not find it a bit difficult lining up front & rear sights on target: I know though that some do. And, I do not freak easily. I busted my Brown bear at 30 yds. (My guide shot just after I did and missed.) Big game hunters here, over the last 30-40 yrs (longer?) have had little experience wi iron sights since scopes have become so prolific. And many of them are not even proficient wi scopes. I much prefer irons when hunting close cover, but I don't much hunt that stuff anymore. All of my rifles but one have variable scopes which I carry on low power which I can dial up for long range. On my AK brown bear hunts I had my .338WM equipped wi a 1.75-6X Leop AND irons. I was zeroed for both and knew what the irons would do at 50, 100 & 200 yds. as well as what the scope did at those ranges. There have been some good points made here, particularly by Palmer & Biebs, about seeing detail & having opportunities at other game. Having a low power variable wi detach mounts combined wi irons is, I think, the way I would go. Finally, if I were to hunt wi you Shakari, after some consultation, I would heed your advice. When hunting wi a pro I have already researched him & part of what I consider I am paying for, among other things, is his skill & advice; its foolish to ignore it. Shakari, are you having wet dreams at night about the Rigby?

With a low-power scope and an illuminated center point (or Circle Dot), you're faster than with irons, especially with a true 1x scope.

If your rifle's fit is made for the scope, all the better.

Being that 99% or more of one's shooting - if he's not a PH in the business of cleaning clients' mistakes - is better done with scopes, it just makes sense to use one.

The only time I can see that you don't want a scope on your rifle is when you have to go through thick stuff and can't afford to have the thing entangled at the wrong time, or to fall on the lens during a scuffle with an ill-mannered critter.

Got scopes on all my rifles, and all my stocks' fit is for scope. On the two guns that may one day be needed without a scope, I've got my irons (peep) set up so they fit the stock, not the other way round.

quote:

Zimbabwe; I'm 73; grey in the muzzle & long in the tooth- but I still have good eyesight & reflexes.

Then why ask?

It is my opinion that one need not have one, or the other! It is very easy to have both.

Of course there are people who simply have such bad eyesight that they can't see open sights at all. In that case there are only two choices, #1 you stop hunting, and #2 you use a scope for everything. There aren't many of those people, however.

There is a difference in the scoped double rifle, and a scoped bolt rifle. The difference is in which is the PRIMARY sight for either type. A double rifle's irons are primary, and the scope is a special purpose sight. The bolt rifle has a scope as primary, and the irons are special purpose sights. Both mounted in quality QD scope mounts, that return absolutely to zero.

The double rifle is carried with irons as primary, and the scope attached only when needed to thread a bullet through a hole in the bush that can't be seen with the necked eye, or for a long shot at suddenly spotted trophy plains game requireing a percise placement on a small target. The stock on the double is set up for the irons, and the scope is a compromise
that you must adjust to.

On the bolt the scope is primary, and the stock is set up for the low mounted scope, but in the QD mounts, so the scope can be removed very quickly, if the scope is damaged, or there is a need for the irons. In this case the irons are set up to match the stock configuration, so both sighting systems can be used.

In both cases the hunting rifle should be fitted with both irons, and scope, which sight is the back-up, depends whether it is a bolt rifle or double rifle, and wheter the rifle is chambered for a special cartridge that is better used exclusivly with irons, like the 505 Gibbs in a bolt, or a 577 in a double rifle for instance.

I have a few rifles that have only scopes, and slick barrels, and I have rifles that are irons only, but that is because these are speciality rifles. P-dog , or target rifles, or very large bore rifles that are used historiclly for very short range distances, and the recoil negating the use of scopes. All other "HUNTING" rifles will have both, and both will be sighted in, not just there for looks.

,.................. .........

I see several posters saying that they can't see their open sights as well as their scope sight reticule. I have news for you, no one can see open sights better that a scope reticule. No one, no matter how good their eye sight is can focus on the target, front sight and rear sight at the same time.

But that doesn't mean that you can not shoot open sights well. I have used open sights on both doubles and bolt rifles to take elephants and buffalo. In fact I have only taken one elephant with a scoped rifle. I have also taken elephants out to 90 yards and several buffalo at 90 to 125 yards with open sights. I couldn't have asked for better bullet placement on those shots, they went exactly where I intended. Sometimes I have been amazed.

To shoot open sights (out to 100 yards or so)you have to forget everything you have learned about rifle shooting pertaining to sights but the rules of good trigger control and follow through still pertain. If you can still shoot a shotgun with reasonable success on clay birds or flying game birds then in my opinion you your eyes are good enough to use open sights.

With a shotgun the best shots never ever focus on the front sight. Their focus is always on the target. With an iron sighted rifle the same applies. Look through your sights and focus on the spot on your target that you want the bullet to hit. To hit that spot your rifle must fit to near perfection. Your body can and will adjust a small amount but the better the fit the more consistent your results. If your rifle fits you well, your sights will be aligned properly to each other and to the target. If you take the time to check to see if your front sight is properly set in the notch and the front sight is properly aligned on the target you will be much slower than when using a scope where the reticule is in focus as is the target. That is why most say the scope is faster because for them it is. But if you do as I described above you will be faster with open sights. It takes a lot of practice mounting your rifle to get the sights to automatically align but not as much as you might think. The next step is to gain confidence in using this technique. Put a two inch paster on your target and step back 10 yards focus on the center of the paster, mount the rifle and look through the sights. Resist the temptation to see if the sights are properly aligned. Fire as soon as the rifle comes to the shoulder. After awhile you will gain confidence in being able to center the paster. When it comes easily, move back in 5 yard intervals and repeat the exercise. Keep doing this until you can consistently hit the paster at 25 yards without checking to see if the sights are aligned. If you consistently hit one way or another off of the paster, then you have a stock fit problem.

465H&H





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

I've shot a lot of pistols and rifles in competition with red dot sights. These seem well suited to close range and DG hunting. Yet I don't hear of many in use, why not? The military's use has eliminated the reliability
question, is there something I don't know about?

465, good information but from a mechanical stand point concentration on the front sight is one of the keys to accuracy with iron sights.

Chip, I killed an elephant with an S&B flashdot scope set at 1.1 power with a red dot. It is a smoking fast sighting system. In my view, the reason you don't see more red dot sights in the African field is tradition. It is common for guys to want to hunt like the old time African hunters. There are newer sighting systems that are more accurate and faster than iron sights, but irons are usually just fine. Either way doesn't matter too much.

j

quote:

Originally posted by Palmer:

quote:

I am thinking shot opportunities should be 50 yds & closer.

Quite often you cannot get within 50 yds. Also follow up shots as the buff is running off can be long.

Another consideration is that as you are carrying your rifle on a buffalo hunt there are often opportunities at plains game such as wildebeast or kongoni that are usually longer than 50 yd shots. Your trackers will be licking their lips and will be very disappointed if you do not obtain their dinner.

True. Just took a dugga boy in Kitiangare at 20 yards with my .375, wearing a 1.5-5x20 Leupold, set wide open, and took a Coke's hartebeest at around 180 at max power. The 2.5-8 is a very good choice for a .375, probably better than what I'm using. A bolt rifle well scoped is a practical choice for anyone. Doubles, are, of course, a different story.

The solution to me seems simple.

Just have a scope or a red dot, or both, set up for your DGR in QD mounts.

I have scopes on 2 of my doubles, a 9,3x74R and a 450/400 3 1/4".

I also have scopes on my Drillings.
I have taken turkey and grouse with the scopes on the guns.

quote:

Originally posted by Josh A.:
465, good information but from a mechanical stand point concentration on the front sight is one of the keys to accuracy with iron sights.

Chip, I killed an elephant with an S&B flashdot scope set at 1.1 power with a red dot. It is a smoking fast sighting system. In my view, the reason you don't see more red dot sights in the African field is tradition. It is common for guys to want to hunt like the old time African hunters. There are newer sighting systems that are more accurate and faster than iron sights, but irons are usually just fine. Either way doesn't matter too much.

j

Josh,

You are correct and that is what we are all taught when we go to a rifle or pistol shooing class. But and this is a big but you don't need that type of accuracy at close range, let's say within 50 yards. In fact with dangerous game you just don't have the time to go through all that find the sights business. Even IPSC shooters look through their open sights when engaging close targets say out to 15 yards. They won't take the time to refine their sight picture because it just isn't necessary. Try what I described and you will be amazed at how well you can do.

465H&H

465, I am trying to agree with you. Whatever I do is instinctive. However, the top competitors in almost all the iron sight sports will tell you that they are looking at their front sights and not the target. Obviously they are shooting targets that don't charge them but the essence is still the same. With iron sights, if you want to hit the target, focus on your front sight. That focus can be instinctive and unconscious but is still essential. If the target is a living beasty, it does help to keep it in sight as well.

j

A few years ago, our own Phil Shoemaker (458 Win) and some other big shot guide did some testing on this very subject, "target acquisition" of dangerous game coming at you. In virtually every scenario, the low power scope beat the irons hands down. Maybe Phil will chime in. jorge

quote:

Originally posted by Josh A.:
465, I am trying to agree with you. Whatever I do is instinctive. However, the top competitors in almost all the iron sight sports will tell you that they are looking at their front sights and not the target. Obviously they are shooting targets that don't charge them but the essence is still the same. With iron sights, if you want to hit the target, focus on your front sight. That focus can be instinctive and unconscious but is still essential. If the target is a living beasty, it does help to keep it in sight as well.

j

What you prescibe works fine and is SOP when the target is a fixed shape and you are shooting to the same point within it, generally the center or center of mass, every round for hundereds and hundreds of rounds.

But for elephants, or buff close, 465H&H is correct. If your rifle fits properly, it will shoot where you look. And because target shape is no constant and center of target or mass is unlikely to be where the bullet needs to go, you must focus on the point where you want your bullet to go. The harder you focus, the better your shot will be. When I do this properly, I see the front bead well, but it isn't my focuus. That is the point on the elephants head where I want the bullet to strike. 465H&H's method also acounts for the inevitable movement of the target if you approach closely.

JPK

I hope this does not stray too far from the thread topic but are aperture sights included in your replies to this post?

I just tried an aperture sight & found it to be quick & accurate (at the range).

Scopes are faster, scopes allow more accurate bullet placement, fast or slow, and variables cover both near and far. What is the question?

The question is "Did the responders to this post include aperture sights in their responses - did they group aperture sights in with the general category of "iron sights"?

As an older persron, sighting with express sights (leaf rear sight & post front sight) I find very difficult.
With an aperture sight aligning the peep hole with the front post is quick & accurate.

That is not to say that aperture sights are as fast and accurate as scopes but they could be an alternate to a scope to someone who has difficulty aligning rear leaf, post front sights and the target & chooses to not scope their weapon.

I've never hunted Africa, but I strictly use peep sights on my leverguns for deer and elk hunting. I use scopes on the bolts.

I find a peep sight, fast and accurate for anything up to 175 yards. Which is about as far as I want to shoot a .30-30, .35 Remington or .348 Winchester.

At 53, open sights aren't my friend anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by Josh A.:
465, I am trying to agree with you. Whatever I do is instinctive. However, the top competitors in almost all the iron sight sports will tell you that they are looking at their front sights and not the target. Obviously they are shooting targets that don't charge them but the essence is still the same. With iron sights, if you want to hit the target, focus on your front sight. That focus can be instinctive and unconscious but is still essential. If the target is a living beasty, it does help to keep it in sight as well.

j

Josh,

I have to smile at your repeat of the front sight focus issue. I smile because it reminds me of what one of the top sporting clay shooters and instructors once told me. He said that rifle and pistol target shooters are the hardest students to teach to shoot a shotgun correctly because their rifle shooting instructors did such a good job in instilling the front sight focus doctrine on them that they had great difficulty shifting their focus to the target whether bird or clay. Unfortunately, they were domed to being mediocre shotgun shots. IPSC shooters are a much more practical bunch and almost always choice the system that works best for them. Whether they are using an open sight, scope or electronic sight they universally don't focus on the sight for close in targets, those 15 yards and closer. They focus on the target and look through the sights.

An open sighted rifle when used for close in DG hunting is used more as a shotgun rather than a rifle, at least in shooting technique. One PH told me as we walked up to the area where I had shot a leopard, to not try to see the sights if the leopard charged as I would not have time for that. The leopard will be too fast to try to see the sights. He said to just raise the rifle and look at the spot on the cat I wanted to hit and pull the trigger when the rifle was hit my shoulder and my cheek was down on the stock. Good advice in my opinion.


465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
A few years ago, our own Phil Shoemaker (458 Win) and some other big shot guide did some testing on this very subject, "target acquisition" of dangerous game coming at you. In virtually every scenario, the low power scope beat the irons hands down. Maybe Phil will chime in. jorge

Finn Agaard did this years ago and found the low power scope much quicker than irons.

quote:

Originally posted by VFR1:

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
A few years ago, our own Phil Shoemaker (458 Win) and some other big shot guide did some testing on this very subject, "target acquisition" of dangerous game coming at you. In virtually every scenario, the low power scope beat the irons hands down. Maybe Phil will chime in. jorge

Finn Agaard did this years ago and found the low power scope much quicker than irons.

Here is something to think about. If you use the technique as I described it and the shot goes off as the rifle hits your shoulder, how can a scope be quicker unless you fire before the rifle is to your shoulder. It may be as fast but it can't be quicker.

465H&H

May be I should have explained my answer better.

I have no problem using an open sight shooting an animal standing out in the open at reasonable distances.

But, having hunted for while, I know one does not get this sort of target very often.

The animal might be in the bush, and one can only see part of it. This, at least in my case, makes it impossible to take the shot.

With a scope, one can place his shot accurately in any opening that might present itself.

Gentlemen- I just posted a PM to a person who sent me a PM, taking great umbrage at my writing style on this topic. He was arrogant and insulting. I have never seen his handle on here. I will not stoop to his level by naming him. But, if it happens again it will go public. His complaint was about my failure to use paragraphs!

I note that most of you do use paragraphs. Is that a requirement? (I omit use of paragraphs when posting for reasons of speed & brevity- unless it is a lengthy treatise.) Is this a problem for you folks? If so, I will change.

I was not offended by the substance of his complaint but by the tone. He seemed like he had an axe to grind & was making a mountain out of a molehill. Plus, his PM had misspellings, incomplete & missing words & duplicate words. Kind of akin to the pot calling the kettle black.

Oh, and then, at the end of his post, he says to please not respond to his PM.

I bring this subject up here for the reason that this is where it started, with my initial post.

What is it with some of the posters on AR that they cannot carry on civil discourse? If you have a problem with something someone says- address the issue; don't attack the person. Why hide behind the web and be insulting?

Some of the stuff I see here; if it were done face to face you probably would wind up dusting off the seat of your pants. My reaction to this one was to smack him in the nose if he had been present.

Now, getting back on topic, the consensus here seems to be that low powered variable scopes are preferred over irons for the majority of users.(I include peeps, or apertures.) But some prefer irons in the hands of a highly skilled user.

After all the input here I come down on the side of scopes backed up with QD mounts & sighted in peep/aperture. Got my answer; thanks for your replies. After posting my reply PM and this rant I feel much better now, thank you.

Double look the best without a scope and shoot the best with one.

Perry

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Mike H.:
It seems strange to me that people don't realize that a 1x scope is the same as iron sights but with a crosshair.

No, it is not the same.

Iron sights have three planes to screw with, peep sights have two, and scopes put everything in the same plane.

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Mike H.:
It seems strange to me that people don't realize that a 1x scope is the same as iron sights but with a crosshair.

No, it is not the same.

Iron sights have three planes to screw with, peep sights have two, and scopes put everything in the same plane.

Correct, red dot sights put everything in the same plane as well.

You only have to focus on one thing, not three [rearsight front sight and animal]. We all know that the front sight is the most imortant...
But if your eyes are not perfect, either from birth of from age, there is nothing wrong with using some sort of optical sight.

If you cannot see iron sights, and still want to shoot elephants at 10 yards and less, take a look at a red dot sight.

When younger I never used anything but iron sites and did quite well with them. I had lots of practice as bulletts were cheap. The truth was I realley coud not afford a good scope at that point in life so used what was available. As I got older my finances got better and I could now afford to buy whatever scope I liked. I still preffered the iron sites. Well, that is until the astigmatism and correction became more and more of a problem. Hell now I cant even read the words on the tv 10 ft away. So
A low magnification scope is pretty much always in order. It is why I made up my mind to not buy a double rifle I had been lookig at.I would love to have one but there is no way I will ever put a scope on one. It is bad enough that my vision plain moves up and down the barrel at will or so it seems. I loose one thing I want but gain another so all is not loss. No money spent on a new double means money for a hunt.

No matter how low the magnification, with a scope you loose perspective. For a right handed shooter there will be a blind spot to the right annd forward where the scope's barrel blocks your left eye's view, and your right eye's view is all but limited to what field of view the scope provides. Up close, this is not enough.

With open sights, there is no blind spot above the level of the rifle.

Limiting your perspective while elephant hunting is an error, imo. No issue with buff hunting though.

Satisfied owner of Swaro 1.25x4 and S&B 1.1x4 as well as Leupold 1.5x5. But the problem exists for every scope.

JPK