It is a matter of preference I suppose. Do what you think best and be aware of the potential pitfalls and compromises.

I've always liked iron sights but almost all my rifles have scopes. I fixed that with my Springfield sporter. I had it stocked for the Lyman 48. Unfortunately I'm also 71 so I have a scope backup for my iron sights. A Jaeger side mount for a Leupold VariX 3. The rifle is so trim with the irons it seems a shame to scope it. Shoots good to.

Scope backup for iron sights - I like it. The proper order of things

There are other solutions to working with barrel sights of course. Scopes are just the easiest. Unfortunately 99% of rifle owners don't use irons as a back up, or a second choice. It is their, first, last, and only choice. Because they aren't even willing to try to learn to shoot irons of any type. It is just not done anymore.

A lot of the sambar 'hound men' around here still only use open sights because of the close ranges and rough-and-tumble hunting.

I've still got three rifles with open, tangent sights and one with an aperture plus peeps reserved for a couple of other rifles. Though I'm nudging 67 and have myopia, I can still shoot reasonably well with the open sights, given a big-enough target.

My short sight is lengthening so that I can read books beyond a foot with no glasses and this makes the rear sight more furry when wearing them.

The trick I find is just to evaluate that fuzzy back sight, working out what parts represents the edges, then make sure the picture is similar at each shot. Two-inch groups at 100 yards have been shot doing this.

The human eye can only focus on two objects, the rear sight and the front sight or the front sight and the target, any mixture of the two..I suppose one has to determine which of the three objects to focus on..I focus on the rear and front sight and the target is somewhat blurred, but its the largest of the three, so it works real well for me...Up to about 150 yards I can hold a iron sight dead on a target and concentrate on trigger pull, and shoot fast or slow...With a scope my wiggle is magnified and I tend to grab at the trigger as it floats by the target therefore I shoot better "off hand" up to about 150 yards with irons or a low power scope. I have proved this to folks on a number of occasions teaching shooting with irons...However todays hunters seldom shoot off hand, and sticks are the in thing today it seems, oh what an abomination they be! The best rest is a rock, a tree or something nature put their for the true hunter!

With a receiver or peep sight you do not focus on the rear aperture. You look through it. When I shot National Match for the 4th AD with the M14 we were taught to focus on the front sight and not the target. The aperture helped sharpen the image. With 71 year old eyes the lense just doesn't accomidate anymore but the peep still works for me. Open sights are hopeless though.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
The human eye can only focus on two objects, the rear sight and the front sight or the front sight and the target, any mixture of the two..I suppose one has to determine which of the three objects to focus on..I focus on the rear and front sight and the target is somewhat blurred, but its the largest of the three, so it works real well for me...

That sounds like a pistol-shooting outlook, Ray, and with pistols you can more-or-less focus on the back and front sights and let the target blur. That sight alignment is even more critical in pistol sights, of course, because of the short distance between them.

I don't think we can really focus on the front sight and a distant target at exactly the same time, though, but our ageing eyes don't notice the transition as much as when trying to define the closer rear sight on a rifle.

Shooting shotguns, on the other hand, should be all target-focused. If the gun fits properly and we have good form, we can more or less ignore the bead and rib - they will find their own alignment.

I use irons on my backpacking rifles. I use them in case of failure, weather, or just plain enjoyment. I often carry my rifles sans scope for hunting. Big front sights. Favorite is square tall post and a ghost ring peep. While I enjoyed the sharper sight of youth, I am content that the center of a bit fuzzy is still the center. Once accepted the trigger break is all that matters.
Now I need to find a good front sight for my “old man” rifle a Ruger ftw 260. The old Mauser 30-06 the Springfield 35 whelen and the 458 Whitworth are all ready to go.

All I do is backpack hunting, sometimes for long periods, and most of it from fly camps. (spike camps?) through exceedingly rugged country, and I am not going out in the mountains for a couple of weeks with only a scope.

There are three scopes in the bottom of a river I used to cross to get in and out of a valley - I dropped them in the water on the way out after they all failed.

I will admit though, that I am the exception, in that many people do not know how to use them with confidence, and so they are limited to a scope.
Of course then there is the people who are just "progressive", and will not consider irons sights because anything old fashioned is worthless.

I just try to be practical. I started out with iron sights because I didn't have much money, so suppose I learned a life skill that has been useful.

CH, I'm interested to know what your failed scopes were and how they let you down. You may know my outlook but many people think modern scopes are great and that any worry about them is rubbish because of that attitude you mention: that new is 'progressive', so must be better.

An option to consider as a back packer is use a fixed low power scope, 3X Leupold for instance as very little of the tube sticks out the front ring, and that makes all the difference in the world..The big belled long scopes are the culprit for getting out of zero. I would think a back packer with a 3X Leupold would be in good hands, but still wouldn;t hurt to use Talley scope bases and rings and have the small Talley QD peep in ones pocket..and that has worked for me for years in Africa..Most of my big bores were so set up although some carried the Leupold compact 2.5X, the toughest modern day scope I know of by far...It has the cross hairs under the adjustments Im told therefore is all but indestructible, and seems to work..

That 2.5x Leupold scope of yours still intrigues me, Ray. If you ever decide to sell it, let me know.

Its the Leupold compact, I think its still in production..I also have a 4X compact, but never used it on a big bore..

When I shoot a barrel mounted iron sight, I cut the rear V deep and then use a post front sight and take a flush bead or post, like one would do with a S&W revolver that uses a square as opposed to V. This set up was used by the texas rangers of yesteryear as it was fast and accurate, My granddads gun was so set up as such and I grew up shooting it and its the best Ive used for iorns..The shallow V of Africa and England is also a nice iron, I concentrate on the rear and front sight as you declared and put it on the target, right or wrong it works best for me and that's what counts..As for irons, the peep or receiver is the most accurate and its fast, hard to beat and nearly as accurate as the scope, and in many cases, works better than a scope...Many get flaked out at such a statement, in all likelihood they have very little experience with irons and figure it just can't be...What a shame.

I've been blessed to hunt sheep around the world and for years I was a stickler about having open sights as backup. Yes, "backup"

Slowly, I gravitated away from the extra effort of sighting in and practicing with irons for sheep hunting, even on serious backpack hunts.

If we're talking about Cape buffalo at 30 to maybe 100 yards, irons would he fine. If we're talking sheep or anything else at 200-400+/- yards, only a scope will do and that's just the way it is. Don't shit yourself otherwise.

The nice thing is we all have an opinion and a choice of what to use....that's the awesome part but having a choice doesn't make the truth any less true.

And yes, I sometimes hunt with irons...and revolvers...and archery tackle. One simply has to know the limitations of the tool.
None of the above will out-shoot a scope when a little air is between the muzzle and the target.

Zeke

quote:

None of the above will out-shoot a scope when a little air is between the muzzle and the target.

There is a reason that in most match's scoped and iron sighted rifles do not complete against each other

Sorry boys but I can,t imagine going into the real thick stuff after a disgruntled or wounded Cape buffalo, an Alaskan Brown Bear, or any Dangerous game, I hestitate to use even a irons sight at barrel range, just point and shoot, and with practice is accurate as hell up to 20 -25 yards, been there done it..Practice your point shooting or instinctive shooting as some refer to it..Its incredibly accurate, some can do that at some very long ranges like 75 yards..I can't point shoot over a scope, don't know anyone that can, and seen it tried by many playing around..

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Sorry boys but I can,t imagine going into the real thick stuff after a disgruntled or wounded Cape buffalo, an Alaskan Brown Bear, or any Dangerous game, I hestitate to use even a irons sight at barrel range, just point and shoot, and with practice is accurate as hell up to 20 -25 yards, been there done it..Practice your point shooting or instinctive shooting as some refer to it..Its incredibly accurate, some can do that at some very long ranges like 75 yards..I can't point shoot over a scope, don't know anyone that can, and seen it tried by many playing around..

Works the same with a proper and properly mounted scope

O.K. here we might get into bones of contention as I like Coopers "Scout Concept" I built up a little Krag with all unneccasary weight removed, jeweled every internal surface, cut + crowned the bbl @ 18", built a trigger w/ no travel just 2.5 lbs. Mounted a Leupold 2.5 LER scope forward so it works like a shotgun, or "scout idea". I live on a hilltop over the valley + have a mounted skeet thrower. Along with shotgunning, I play with my Krag + hit more than I miss. Shooting skeet w/ a rifle is nothing to sneeze at. I got the idea from Gunsite as they were dong a course; good idea for quick target aquissition. A few years ago I saw 3 deer in my garden; I grabbed the Krag, went out + shot all 3 in less time that it took to write this last sentance.

To each his own, makes for good conversation but I doubt if anyone is going to change their mind, and Im good with that because the best advise is do what your satisfied with...

One point that we left out is how nice a iron sighted rifle feels and handles,and how awkward a scope is, but again many don't realize that nor care..Guides and PHs generally bring this up when the topic raises its ugly head around the campfire..

quote:

One point that we left out is how nice a iron sighted rifle feels and handles,and how awkward a scope it, but again many don't realize that nor care..Guides and PHs generally bring this up when the topic raises its ugly hear around the campfire..

A iron sighted rifle of the same make and model as a scope rifle is lighter and carries nicer.

You well not get an argument from me on that point.

But if you can't make hits with it what good is it.

I wish my eye sight was good enough to use a iron sighted rifle effectively.

But 50 yards or so is my limit.

But even under that a properly mounted properly scoped rifle. In practiced hands is faster.

It also allows one to pick out holes in the brush so one can thread a bullet through it.

Also allows one to identify the proper animal.

Last years white tail buck was a prime example.

At about forty yards I could see a deer laying there. The brush was thick enough to obscure his horns. I used my scope see them and make a perfect neck shot DRT.

I have went back several times and wonder how in the heck I made the shot the brush is that thick.

Answer is I was able to find a hole through it with my scope.

Done that so many times I can't count them.

Besides the weight savings and carrying ease.

A properly mounted and properly scope rifle gives nothing up.

A PH's and a guides rifle has a totally different job to do.

Then the rifle of someone that has spent the money to hunt with them.

I am an iron sight guy. I have used a scope on my rifle for a long time. Like the above poster says you can find a bullet path through the bush with a scope. Very specific sighting device.

Recently I have realized that most of my hunting/shooting now is on close range cape buffalo so I have set up my big bores for peep sights. I can still see them with my old eyes.

I like the style of iron sights. Fits with my single shot
rifles. Sorta "old school". Not as precise but very simply and satisfying. Nice to carry as I don't use a slings when stalking a buffalo. To each his own.

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Canada:
I am an iron sight guy. I have used a scope on my rifle for a long time. Like the above poster says you can find a bullet path through the bush with a scope. Very specific sighting device.

Recently I have realized that most of my hunting/shooting now is on close range cape buffalo so I have set up my big bores for peep sights. I can still see them with my old eyes.

I like the style of iron sights. Fits with my single shot
rifles. Sorta "old school". Not as precise but very simply and satisfying. Nice to carry as I don't use a slings when stalking a buffalo. To each his own.

Hunting with non optic mounted firearms.

Like any limitations one puts on ones self. IE bows, handguns ect ect.

If you can live with them go for it.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Sorry boys but I can,t imagine going into the real thick stuff after a disgruntled or wounded Cape buffalo, an Alaskan Brown Bear, or any Dangerous game, I hestitate to use even a irons sight at barrel range, just point and shoot, and with practice is accurate as hell up to 20 -25 yards, been there done it..Practice your point shooting or instinctive shooting as some refer to it..Its incredibly accurate, some can do that at some very long ranges like 75 yards..I can't point shoot over a scope, don't know anyone that can, and seen it tried by many playing around..

Jack Hooker advised not trying to see through the scope, just see the crosshairs on the target at close range.

Any rifle sans iron sight looks unfinished and ridiculous. It also more than likely is plastic and stainless steel. Vulgar to say the least.

Succinct and on target.

P dog I have no doubt of what your post or experience is, I agree up to a point I suppose, but if one discusses such trivia opinnions and what ifs come as proof of the pudding, and may or may not be more fiction than fact, or visa versa..in the end it boils down to ones personal experience on most of these blogs..I do respect everyones point of view, it makes things interesting..

Tomohawker, I like your style!

quote:

e

Using 86s and Model 71s with early Model 70s gets one used to backup iron sights. A G&H sidemount with a Lyman 48 is still one of the best rigs.
An extrascope so fitted can change out easily.
The ring base is aluminum so they weight is no issue.
A Lyman or Leupold Alaskan works well-old school.
Most of my best shots were under 100 yards-
as to still hunting. Hunting is still what its about.

The bottom line is why not have irons handy, its ridiculus not to have them, they are cost effective, been killing game for ions, can't hurt a thing and no they are not for sheep at 400, but contrary to some reports I have shot more sheep, antelope, mule deer and coues deer at under a 100 yards than I have at 400..with irons and scopes..I can apply that to all big game..

If your totally anti iron sights then don't use them, but skip the BS, its unbecoming!

or have a spare scope but that is adding weight.

Yes I definitely fall into the iron sight category. I have them on about 90% of my rifles....only a couple do not have them. Scopes are great, but I grew up using irons and feel naked without them. What I find truly sad is how many hunters I meet these days who have NEVER used irons. Just doesn't seem right.

Sorry to return to this topic (like a dog returning to its vomit) but it has occurred to me that by the time we realise we need the iron sights beneath our scope, the shot of a lifetime may already have been missed.

Better, I think, to have the most reliable scope you can find and hope not to need auxiliary or replacement sights.

For big game, this can mean a small, fixed-power 2.5 or 4x scope set low. For me it also means steel outer tubes and no erector tube bouncing around inside, but these old scopes are hard to find now and need effort to set up.

Better yet, have irons for your primary sights and more irons for your "back up" sights.

Ive shot my 25-35 94 carbine since I was about 8 or 9 years old, killed deer and elk as I grew up and still use it from time to time on deer and elk..I recently purchased an old lyman fold down peep sight and tested it out on the 25-35, Its always shot 3 to 3,5"s, but With the peep it shot 10 shots in 1.5 average, so I glassed the screws in and its there to stay...I also have added receaver sights to my .348 win and several of my 30-30s..Guess my eyesight needed a little boost or perhaps always did..My JP Sauer came with a od 35 Lyman peep that also is the bolt release, pretty neat and it shoots an inch at 100 most of the time and since its never been D&T it will never wear a scope..

Im not by any means anti scope, most of my guns are low power scoped and 2x7s..but all have quality irons

I can still use iron sights but not without issues, particularly with open sights.

I hate the full, dingo-ear V in express sights (gives high shots when you're in a hurry) and I sometimes see two diamonds behind other rear sights, even with one eye shut.

Going back to a couple of earlier posts in this thread:

Carlsen Highway, what were those scopes you left in the water and how did they stuff up?

Ray, the scope I was asking about was that special one Leupold made for you, saying you wouldn't be able to break it because the reticle was under the turrets.
They may have used an M8-era Compact body but my inference is that the guts were M7 or earlier, or made along those lines.

One was a Weaver, fogged up totally white and didnt dry out in a week. I still shot a deer with it at 20 yards! I just imagined where the cross hair would be...
Another was a Bushnell Banner, that one got bent when I dropped the rifle. Not really the scopes fault.

Another I forget the brand off, but the cross hairs literally pinged apart. I heard it happen! Looked an the reticle was in peices. No impact or fall, just broke for no reason while I was holding the rifle. Might have been a Nickel.

I have Leupolds on all my rifles now except a Zeiss on my "open country" rifle. The Leupold fixed M8's are my favourite. Very light and I have not broken one yet.

I also have open sights on everything too..

Thanks CH,
though Nickels may not have been the most waterproof, way back, strong reticle systems were their trump card, so I'd be surprised if that happened to one. Metal reticles of the #1 type are only supported at one end of the pickets, though, so I guess tremendous recoil might bend them, as happened in an old Kahles I was told of.

The only problems I've heard of with Nickels are brittle lens cement and a focus problem in the erector set. I found the latter in a 2.5-6×36 variable and have heard of one other owner having the same issue.

I bought that scope for research only, at a parts price. Of the other 10 Nickels I've got, a bit of dendritic fungus around one objective lens is the only problem noticed. I've used three of the others on my rifles and not had a problem, even on the .338 and 9.3.

quote:

Originally posted by Skyline:
Yes I definitely fall into the iron sight category. I have them on about 90% of my rifles....only a couple do not have them. Scopes are great, but I grew up using irons and feel naked without them. What I find truly sad is how many hunters I meet these days who have NEVER used irons. Just doesn't seem right.

+1.

If a bow hunter or pistol hunter can kill game and they certainly d0 then surely someone can kill with an iron sighted rifle! I have killed game with a bow and a pistol at times in my life and hunting is hunting and the hunting is the best part of a hunt to me.. love to hunt deer and elk with my 25-35, 250 Savage amd 30-30, and iron sights and those calibers require me to not shoot beyond 150 yards and it requires me to discipline myself, that's a requirement and can be damn disappointing if I see a 6 point royal bull that I know I can shoot and make a shot, but I also realize I could wound very easily. Its happened many times, but hey its called hunting not killing with a tape measure in my pocket... I know what I can do with a scope to take the challenge out of a hunt.. I've mostly only realized this as I've aged..Today due to age I willl soon shoot white tail from a blind or slow short stalks and a cow elk out of a alfalfa field, mostly with iron sights and fairly small calibers with irons and low recoil with care. I owe that privilege to the Idaho fish and game, I can even shoot from the pickup and when that time comes, and its partly here now, I intend to do so.

Don't weaken yet, Ray. I read a book by a guy in India who shot tigers until he pegged out at 95, mostly from machans, of course.

That you still favor iron sights says much for your eyes, at least.