one of us
| You have to remember that the majority of the Ruger buyers are buying small to medium bores with the intention of putting the biggest scope on and never ever taking it off. ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif) ![[Razz]](images/icons/tongue.gif) |
| | |
one of us
| Yep, I know that. However, with a �knock-around rifle�, I like having iron back-up sights as a factory option. In the end, this change is not unlike a lot of others that I don�t like; I can get around it. CP. |
| | | Posts: 153 | Location: Wapiti Way, MT | Registered: 29 September 2002 | 
IP
|
|
One of Us
| CP, I've heard the same rumor. As a die-hard M70 fan it doens't matter much to me. However, the Ruger open sights are, to my eyes, very handsome and in keeping with the lines of the M77. However, they are quite heavy and aren't really as good as a good front blade and a rear peep (which is how I'll set up anything in the future). Ashley (and others) makes a detachable rear peep for the M77 as well as for any Weaver style base (which are what I use on my M70's). This dilema might force you into something altogether "better" in the long run... just a thought!
Good Hunting,
BA |
| | |
one of us
| Brad, I have an Ashley ghost ring system on my Guide Gun. Everybody can shoot over that system, except for me. It is hell to have old eyes. However, I can still consistently hit pop cans at 75 yards with my 30-30 Trapper with factory sights, so I am not blind yet. Nevertheless, I believe that I�ll just spend some smith-dollars on triggers, stocks and iron sights for some of the rifles that I already own. CP. |
| | | Posts: 153 | Location: Wapiti Way, MT | Registered: 29 September 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| why don't you just go on to Ruger's web site and see if they are still cataloged?
Some distributors may not just want to carry them, as I am sure a lot more are sold without them. |
| | | Posts: 2889 | Location: Southern OREGON | Registered: 27 May 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Seafire, of course, iron sights are still catalogued. I was merely passing on a rumor about Ruger�s unannounced decision to stop manufacturing rifles with iron sights to provoke a discussion. I really wanted to hear what folks thought about Ruger�s business strategy in this regard. The loss of the sights is one matter, but Ruger�s business decision to stop mid-year with this optional offering intrigues me a great deal more. Intuitively, you know that the decision was based on demand and margin, but what else could be in play? Are they going to cheapen-up more and chase the 710 market or is this purely a reaction to a lack of demand for the iron sights? I sure don�t know, but thought others might have more insight that they would share. CP. |
| | | Posts: 153 | Location: Wapiti Way, MT | Registered: 29 September 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| I hope the iron sights remain in the line. Am I one of the few left that think a rifle looks naked without sights? I prefer mounting a scope in QD rings so the sights are avaiable if needed (scope failure). I suppose that's a 1 in 1000 scenario, but I still like the looks of them. Winchester puts them on their budget "ranger" line so I can't believe cost is a huge issue. The Ruger && is particularly suited for a QD scope set-up since the integral base is so inconspicuous. |
| | | Posts: 141 | Location: N. Illinois | Registered: 16 July 2002 |
IP
|
|
new member
| Glad to read others like backup irons on their scoped rifles too. It seems I always get a funny look when I say I want to put irons on my M70. I have QD mounts and am shopping for the right sights to put on it. Dad's M70 which was made in '56 is the style I want to match as it just looks right. |
| | | Posts: 19 | Location: Snohomish, WA | Registered: 13 February 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| quote:
Originally posted by CP:
Seafire, of course, iron sights are still catalogued. I was merely passing on a rumor about Ruger�s unannounced decision to stop manufacturing rifles with iron sights to provoke a discussion. I really wanted to hear what folks thought about Ruger�s business strategy in this regard. The loss of the sights is one matter, but Ruger�s business decision to stop mid-year with this optional offering intrigues me a great deal more. Intuitively, you know that the decision was based on demand and margin, but what else could be in play? Are they going to cheapen-up more and chase the 710 market or is this purely a reaction to a lack of demand for the iron sights? I sure don�t know, but thought others might have more insight that they would share. CP.
Being in a manufacturing business myself, I think you are reading way too much into this.
I'd bet that Ruger is simply looking for a way to reduce costs by eliminitaing options that simply don't sell very well.
It costs money to buy an inventory of iron sights. It costs more money when the quantity of sight sets purchased is more than what the real demand for them is. That problem is compounded by the fact that it is notoriously difficult to estimate demand for infrequently ordered configurations. It also costs more money to hold inventory of finished goods of rifles with sights that don't move as well as expected.
The market has spoken and Ruger is listening. |
| | |
