I am having a 35 whelen built on a spanish mauser action. 22" barrel and a short forearm. Going to put a 4x or 1.75-6 scope on it. At the advanced age of 56, I can't use iron sights like I use to. Question; even though you might not ever use them, would you install iron sights anyway, just to make it "look right?"

The only time I DON'T install iron sights is on a dedicated varmint or target rifle. And I'm 63 with vision (-013.0) that would make me 4-F if there was still such a classification.

Install 'em, IMO it just won't look 'right' without sights.

If using an open barrel rear sight, it will help DRAMATICALLY if you'll place it more forward, above or even ahead of the front swivel base or forearm end. The forward positioning serves to sharpen the eye's focus and alignment.

My primary consideration is utility, however. I can live with a trip-interrupting scope malfunction on a day-trip varmint rifle but not on a game rifle. It's not too unfortunate if I lose an afternoon's crow shooting, but if I hafta interrupt a several-days-or-weeks hunting trip and come out of the woods then I'm gonna be tight in the jaw. It's happened to me before, back in the '60s before I learned better. Nowadays I put sights on all my game rifles, and also some method of quickly removing the scope if necessary.
Regards, Joe

My .35 Whelen.....

I install irons as a backup incase the scope fails or is damaged.

Even some of my fwt M-70s now have Williams ramped sights installed.

Gary, this would be the chance to add an Iron sight that you can use. Wider post, ghost ring or peep rear. I know a lot of older Service Rifle shooters that have different sight combunations. I'd add them as a back up unless you are going to go with a removable scope base and two scopes. If your building a rifle to travel with, hunting trips rough terrain, etc. a broken scope could waste a good trip.

If you were going to put them on an open range gun ie .270/.300 Win I'd say no and get a second scope.

But in a Whelen and close quarter hunting, different story. But if you do not feel comfortable using them, then absolutely no.

quote:

Originally posted by FMC:
If you were going to put them on an open range gun ie .270/.300 Win I'd say no and get a second scope.

But in a Whelen and close quarter hunting, different story. But if you do not feel comfortable using them, then absolutely no.

This seems to be sound advice.....

Only once did I ever have a scope go bad on me. It was on a .270 FWT M-70 carried over my shoulder via sling.

I slipped and fell backwards and the scope hit against a rock damaging the seal. In minutes it fogged up such I couldn't see through it.

I was on a drive and my shooting at the time wouldn't have been over 50 yards at almost any time.

All one needs is a quarter and he can remove most scopes in the field.....if you have good irons, you're back in the hunt....if not....smile and walk to the cabin and install a new scope and then sight it in!

+1 on second scope for back up.

I am all for open sights as a back up option but have become more of a cosmetic thing. You either like the way the rifle looks with them or without them and all short range guns should have them.

My 'go-to' 'road-ready' rifle has irons plus 2 scopes in lever QD/QC mounts. It is regularly zero-checked/confirmed during practice and has at least 100 rounds of loaded Partitions in its case at all times. Just good insurance.

After 4 scope-failure incidents (2 fogs, 2 drops) I've become a believer in good insurance.
Regards, Joe

I never use them but seem to have them installed on most of my rifles. I didn't have them put on a .264WM that's set up for long range. That rifle is plastic, stainless and nothing to look at, seemed pointless. I also had a 7X57 built a few years ago with no sights. On that one I just wanted something different.

I guess you could say in my case they are cosmetic, that said I've never had the first problem because they were on the rifle. If you like what they add to a rifle I'd say go for it.

Terry

Not just to be contrary, but since most of my rifles came to me without them, I don't go to the cost of having them installed. If the hunting is local and more than one day I take a second rifle with me. I wouldn't add them to the rifles I have that don't already have them.

that said, if it can be done without too much extra expense at the beginning, and depending on the purpose of the rifle, it would be the time to do it. I think rifles can look very good without them, and some look silly with them actually (i.e. varmint rifles with open sights, definitely silly). But I'd do it for function first, looks a more distant second.

Red

J.D.Steele, If I put irons on this, your suggestion was one of two ways that I was thinking of. The other thing that I was thinking is to just mount the front sight and keep a Talley peep in my pocket for the other. I haven't used a peep before, but hear that they can be great for our "older eyes." Gary

Gary, a Talley peep lives under the trap-door buttplate of my 'go-to' rifle. This rifle also has a typical 3-leaf express wide-vee open rear and NECG band ramp front with spare front bead inside the trap-door grip cap. Two scopes, one variable and the other fixed-power, in Kimber lever rings.

Open vee zeroed at 100 yds, peep zeroed at 200 yds, I ignore the folding leaves and won't take an iron-sight shot over 300 yds. BTW a 3" 5-shot iron-sight group is normal for this rifle at 200 yds, a standing deer at 300 yds is still an easy shot with the peep even at my age.

I once had a neat little Talley trap-door grip cap that was made to store the Talley peep. Very nice although it wasn't hinged but instead was threaded with a coin slot.

Am building 2 early-style Springfield 1903 sporters right now with QD side mounts, early Lyman 48s and trap-door buttplates for storage of the peep sights and sight hoods. Just color me traditional, I like Harleys too.
Regards, Joe

JD Steel, I already have a checkered steel grip cap, so how does the butt trap work? Gary

I had iron sights installed on a few rifles over the years, and they remained unused until I had them removed or sold the rifle. I tried using a rifle or two with iron sights and found them aggrivating. I haven't missed iron sights at all until just last summer, when the scope on my 458 busted. So it's been at the shop for a set of NECG sights. However, I still think iron sights are special purpose, for a DGR where one actually expects to use them at close range.

I see absolutely no need to have them installed just to look right, for cosmetics. I've been having them removed, mostly because I dont like seeing anything useless attached to my scoped rifles. If the scope breaks - hunt over. I have never had that happen, BTW.

If it's that important for the hunt to not be over if the scope fogs, breaks or whatever, I'll take an extra rifle, to be waiting just in case back in camp, in the truck or airplane. A better option is to set up a particular rifle with QD and take along an extra scope with the same ring set-up, sighted in for both scopes, for quick switch. I've never done that, but if I took a trip to a remote place for example, I would definately consider the second scope option.

You can buy a pretty good scope and extra QD rings for the price of installing good iron sights.

I have a new scope for my 458, and plan on using it mostly with reduced loads, and perhaps with some hunting loads. I mostly plan on using the iron sights for heavy bear stopper loads, and bush whacking. So, I'm going to find out about this return-to-zero thing. I'm looking at a new set of 30mm Leupold rings right now, and anxious to give them a try. This is a special purpose rifle, for bear country, to carry along when hiking, berry picking or fishing remote streams or lakes, maybe camping, where the extra weight and bulk of the scope isn't necessary. I'll also use the same rifle for hunting, in which case the scope will be a great advantage. I have no intentions or need to have iron sights on other rifles. I don't consider these iron sights on the 458 as backup sights, but under certain conditions as the primary sights, when I'll leave the scope home.

KB

Big, BIG game rifles should have irons, IMHO. For me that would be 338 WM and up.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by GaryG:
JD Steel, I already have a checkered steel grip cap, so how does the butt trap work? Gary

OK, this is more than a bit of overkill, but here's a photo of my 'go-to' rifle's stock with all its many accessories. The buttplate is Albright, no longer made; the belly trap is/was Brownell's, no longer carried; the grip cap is H&H, no longer affordable for me (grin).


I line the butt cavity with either leather or thick felt for less noise and a more finished look.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Big, BIG game rifles should have irons, IMHO. For me that would be 338 WM and up.

Rich

My 338 and all my 9.3s work very well without iron sights. I wouldn't even consider taking them hunting without a good scope sitting on top. I wouldn't mind having irons on my 375, but the stock is right for a scope, and wrong for irons, which is typical of most rifles today.

No rifle should have iron sights unless you plan on actually using them. Just in case isn't a good enough reason, IMO. That means actually sighting them in for the intended load. It also means a scope set-up that can be removed and return to zero when replaced. Also, it means the stock has to fit you reasonably well for both irons and scope. It's not so easy to do it right, and doing otherwise is just sloppy, and a waste of money. Why do it half-assed?

In my observations, most goobers have enough trouble just sighting in and properly handling a scoped rifle. Add iron sights to that and I'm willing to bet good money that the vast majority of "hunters" never accomplish sighting in both iron sights and the scope, and QD for the scope, that returns to zero when replaced.

No rifle should have iron sights just for looks. In fact, I think they are uuuggly, and get in the way, and snag on things. They have to be useful, or they are less than worthless, IMO.

KB

KB, apparently you have assumed that most readers here are goobers.

You know, they say that our general opinion of others is usually a reflection of our own subconcious opinion of ourselves.....

IMO having no backup sighting system on a serious 'using' rifle is like having no spare tire for your truck; neither decision shows any foresight or intelligence.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
KB, apparently you have assumed that most readers here are goobers.
Joe

Apparantly you have assumed wrong, again. I don't think "most" readers here are goobers, just 49%, which means that I think the majority of readers here are not goobers.

I think the analogy of the spare tire is a good one. That's the just-in-case scenerio. So, if the happy nimrod is one that is in the 51% catagory, his just-in-case iron sights will be sighted in, just as his spare tire will be inflated. There's no need to haul around a spare tire that's flat, just as it's pointless to haul around iron sights that aren't sighted in for the actual load in use.

As explained, the just-in-case scenerio can be covered with a spare scope, QD rings, and both scopes sighted in. A fifty-one percenter could have for the same rifle two scopes which are not identical. For example, one in 3x9 and another in 1x4, or a fixed power for the spare or second scope. I think that set-up would far exceed the usefulness of iron sights in most situations.

I've never tried it, never saw the real need, but I've often wondered if those so-called quick detach systems actually return to zero close enough to say they work. I may try the two-scope thingy on my 458, just to see if it can really be done properly.

KB

My two .375H&H, three 9.3x62, six .338WM and most of my smaller rifles wear good, adjustable, sighted irons, QD mounts and I have spare scopes for almost all of them.

My .458WM old Browning will be the same and I will not have a serious wilderness rifle without this setup. I have Leupy QRs and QRWs, Talleys, EAWs and had claw mounts, irons rock and I CAN shoot with them quite well, even at 64 which is older than Joe...but, the big galoot is right on here!

Congrats Dewey. IMO, you are among the 5% who have their options covered, and are serious about it. I'm glad to read a first-hand report that the QR rings work well, especially the QRWs since those are the ones I would like to try.

I'm open to changing my mind about this, somewhat. So, thinking about the set-up on my 458 with some high grade irons, and two scopes, has me interested in the project. Actually, I've been having fun with the 458 and various handloads, and find it quite versitle, especially by including the Barnes 300gr and 350gr bullets. IMO, it's versitle enough so that I can actually think of different uses and loads that could best be served with the varity of sights, and a quick switch will be handy.

KB

GaryG, I have NECG's on a few of my rifles along with scoped mounted. Have shot with and with out irons but if you ever have to use irons the NECG Masterpiece is quite easy to see and shoot thru "with" accuracies. I am 54 and find these irons to be as perfect as they can get. Too many times I wished I had no scope on as my type of hunting is many times just "in-close". I am deliberating on my next build...a .458WM in my Higgins action already d/t for scope but am leaning heavily for NECG's front and rear. I like the white front bead this day and age instead of fiberoptics. I don't have irons and scope mounted for "just because it looks good", it must really be thought of as "when and if" u are gonna need to use them. Anything can go wrong on a hunt, it is just a matter of when. yep. irons are a "must".

If iron sights are a "must", then it seems to me that there would have been at least one instance in the last 40 years when that just-in-case situation happened, and I actually needed them, or used them when they were the preferred option over a scope.

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx...cts/Rifle_Parts/NECG

I'm having the universal screw-on front ramp attached to my 458 because I don't like the banded verson, and don't want to heat the barrel to have it installed, and because if I later decide that I don't like the sight, I can take it off easier if it's screwed on rather than glued or soldered. Another reason is that the barrel is stainless, and I may decide to have the sight base and screws black T coated, so it can be coated seperate from the barrel.

I don't consider this iron sight installation as absolutely necessary, but a choice. A low power scope will do just as well, but in the case of this rifle and its uses, the irons seem like a good idea, not as back-up, but for the primary sights in special situations.

I think the notion that iron sights are necessary or a "must have" is ridiculous, unless it's on a DGR.

KB

2 scopes are a splendid idea, I do that myself, but I gotta ask you one question: are you gonna pack that spare scope around with you all the time or will it sit in your duffle back in camp until needed? What about when you've already slogged 10 miles away from camp and THEN you find a scope malfunction?

BTW I have tested G&H and Jaeger side mounts plus Kimber and Warne lever rings; my tests included firing 5-shot groups while removing the scopes completely off the rifles between all the shots. IOW shoot a shot, remove and replace the scope; shoot a second shot, remove & replace scope; shoot a third shot, remove etc. The change in group sizes resulting from removal/replacement was less than 10% with no change in POI, for all the mounts mentioned.

The Pilkington QD lever for Leupold/Redfield mounts is iffy, it requires special installation treatment and is still iffy.

In my experience claws are also iffy, some are solid as a rock while others have been hard for me to evaluate since their rifles weren't particularly accurate anyway. Coulda been the rifles, coulda been the mounts.

I have not tested Talley lever rings but would assume that they are fully equal to the Kimbers and G&Hs.
Regards, Joe

One word for scope rings; Talleys.
I went to Zimbabwe in December of 2008. I took my CZ 450 Dakota. Factory irons and a 2.5-8X Loopy. I have had too many shared hunting trips with Mr Murphy to test him on a twelve thousand dollar hunt in Africa. Spare rifle with irons only (the 550 Gibbs). If I had dinged the scope on the CZ it would have been a day wasted going back to the truck and camp to replace it or grab the 550 Gibbs if I did not have the back up irons.

A good quarter rib with express sights and a barrel banded front are cheap insurance. And besides that, they really look fine.

JMHO,

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
2 scopes are a splendid idea, I do that myself, but I gotta ask you one question: are you gonna pack that spare scope around with you all the time or will it sit in your duffle back in camp until needed? What about when you've already slogged 10 miles away from camp and THEN you find a scope malfunction?
Regards, Joe

You're darn right I would pack the extra scope in my day pack, if I was on a hunt that mattered that much, such as the one mentioned by I S. On a hunt like that, days are short and costs long, I would definately have my backup iron sights regulated for the load of choice too. Of course, in pre-planning, I would have tested it all out at the range near home.

Now you have me thinking about it, and memories that I had forgotten are coming back. Many years ago I was on a a moose hunt on the Kenai Peninsula, and it mattered if the sights went amuck. The location was on the bench of land situated sorta between Tustumena Lake and Skilak Lake. It's magnificent and rugged country, remote and wild and kinda scary. I would hate to get lost or injured up there. They would never find the body, for one main reason - something would eat you if you stayed still too long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tustumena_Lake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skilak_Lake

http://www.google.com/search?q...&fp=ed68904dd3283f54

http://www.google.com/search?q...d=ie7&rlz=1I7SKPB_en

Most importantly, it's some of the best world class moose pasture anywhere. It's a hunt of a lifetime, for several reasons, one being that it's difficult to draw a permit. Another good reason is 60 inch +++ bulls are taken regularly there, and several near or over 70 inch.

We rode horses in, and walked out (downhill) with the horses carrying camp and moose.

Anyway, I drew a permit, and planned the hunt well ahead. It just so happened that I had a 458 Mauser with a short barrel. At the time the best 400 gr bullet I could find was the Trophy Bearclaw at $2 each out of Texas. I worked up loads using the Barnes 400gr originals, and shot the whole box. Then duplicated the load with the Bearclaw bullets, checked to see if the hit same POI. Done deal.

But that's background. The main point is that I was using an old Leupold 3X fixed power scope, which was excellent for the task - never broke from recoil. But it brushed my eyebrow at the bench once too many times, so I had the smith replace the poor iron sights that came on the rifle with an excellent set, and I carefully sighted it in with the Barnes. It was amazing how much the FELT recoil was reduced, just by getting that scope out of my face. Now, I remember it well. I also took along that 3X Leupold, with the tool to tighten the screw on the rings to the base. But I never used it. Instead I easily took my moose with the iron sights at about 40 yards. The bearclaw passed through, so I was dissappointed that I couldn't retrieve it, but it took only one shot to do the job.

Here again, the iron sights were not backup, but primary sights, with the scope as backup. That's opposite of the recommendations you guys are making. So, I have no real problem with good iron sights, for the special purposes I have described. It's just that on the rifles dedicated to scope use, I've never needed irons.

On that type of hunt, if I did it again, I would do it in a very similar way. I think the 458 with 400gr bullets is a primo moose getter. The 350gr Barnes TSX wasn't available back then, but now I would give it serious consideration. So, I feel very comfortable with iron sights when bushwhacking in brown bear country, in the Alaska rain forest, near salmon streams, or for moose hunting, because the shots are almost certainly close.

BTW, just for Rich's amusment, those "excellent" sights I had installed were screwed onto the barrel. No quarter rib. No barrel band. No express leafs - just one adjustable leaf. And the front sling stud was screwed into the stock, rather than attached to the barrel. I can't remember what the rear sight was - probably NECG, but the front sight was NECG, with the large hood and the white bead insert. I would do it again the same way, except maybe moving the sling stud forward. IMO quarter ribs, express sights with the multiple leafs, and barrel bands are just all about looks - fluff. Like a blond with big tits, they are just play toys, for guys who think with their other head.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I went to Zimbabwe in December of 2008. I took my CZ 450 Dakota. Factory irons and a 2.5-8X Loopy. I have had too many shared hunting trips with Mr Murphy to test him on a twelve thousand dollar hunt in Africa.

A good quarter rib with express sights and a barrel banded front are cheap insurance. And besides that, they really look fine.

JMHO,

Rich

I always figured that NECG ghost ring rear sight was an excellent choice for a backup (or primary) on the CZ. http://www.brownells.com/.aspx...ll/search=necg_ghost

I thought about using a CZ medium action for a small handy thumper in 9.3x62, or perhaps with a magnum bolt face, chambered in 458 WM, or maybe 416, just because that sight is available to fit that action. Also, I really like that CZ 550 medium action.

If the scope breaks, remove it, and attach the ghost ring sight quickly.

This is the NECG rear sight that I'm using on my custom Ruger 77 MKII in 458. http://www.brownells.com/.aspx..._reg__RECEIVER_SIGHT

It's not as well designed as the NECG for the CZ 550, IMO, but it's the best that I can find available. I remove the little aperture to provide a sort-of ghost ring. I may experiment by removing the whole sliding part, leaving a ghost U shaped notch about the width as the hole for the aperture.

KB

I just received my Brno-ZG-47, an original 9.3x62, back from Martini's and it now has a Micky Edge stock, Satterlee 3-pos. safety, QD rings, soon to be Talleys, 4x Zeiss Conquest, and the Recknagel-NECG ghost rear sight and, soon, a front post on the origninal banded ramp.

This is as close to a "perfect" BC wilderness rifle as I ever hope to find and I have LOTS of others, rigged for this use and based on 54 years next April, since I began hiking in the mountains around my hometown in the Kootenays.

This is the predecessor of the CZ-550 and I completely concur with your concept of a ...small handy thumper... for remote wildernes where bears are big and miserable.

That said, I much prefer barrel bands to attach sights and sling mounts, based on packing a lot of rifles many miles in western and northern Canada. The cost and hassle is worth it to me, but, with the exception of my custom Merkel drilling in 9.3x74R-12Ga., I also do not care for Q-ribs and Limey express sights after owning and using rifles so equipped. Each to his own, there is more than one way and all that.

I also have irons (apertures. both bolt and reciever mounted) as primary's with a scope as back-up on one of my two customs while the second is aperture sighted only. I built my stocks with this intended so the comb is a perfect fit for the irons (at least for my face and shooting style) as it needs to be, and any scope use will be for more deliberate shooting so a little cheek weld adjustment is not of any concern. I dont think I could have a hunting rifle without irons. if not as primaries, then at least as as usable back-up. Checked and tested goes without saying.

Von Gruff.

My favorite bolt actions wear receiver sights as the main sighting system, with scopes along for the ride in a beautiful German leather scope tube slung over my shoulder or stowed in my day pack. Like Joe said, I can slide scopes on and off the G&H's and Jaeger QD side mounts all day long and only experience infinitesimal shift in POI. The scope is along in case of a need to take a longish shot, and only takes about 15 seconds to install it leaving the rifle nice and handy to carry without the intrusion of a scope. And yes, my 57 year old eyes are pretty well shot, but there are simple unintrusive tricks for we old guys to overcome that.

My 358 has iron sights and I intend to get them on my Whelen eventualy as well. Plus scope..

My reasoning is simply this. Ive been in a situation before where my scope has failed and I had no back up. Its not a good situation when you are in the sticks and your time to hunt has finaly arrived and critters are nearby. With iron sights and QD rings, problem solved! Anytime, anywhere anyplace. No need to go back to camp, or back to the truck or anywhere. All you need is a way to carry the scope and the hunt goes on.

Besides, I enjoy using iron sights from time to time. Another perk as opposded to the spare scope idea is that the chances of NOT being on target are greater when swaping scopes. IMHO.

Also in reguards to the spare scope idea, I would never carry an extra scope around with me while hunting. Nor do I know anyone who does. In nearly 40 years of hunting there has only been once or twice that I could have used one, and that was with cheap scopes.. But I ALWAYS have extra rifles at camp..