I am curious as to how many of you guys that use quick release mounts actually take the scope off and use your irons. How practical is this? Mainly i am asking the bear hunters.

grizz

This may not be a popular opinion but I think a second scope is way more valuable than any iron sights. I'll bet in reality that very few people ever use the iron sights if they've even sighted them in.

Mark

I'm with Mark.

I can't remember a hunt that I would have needed the iron sites immediately, but I can remember a hunt when my scope fogged.

Almost all of my ironsighted rifles have scopes in QD mounts. The iron sights are sighted in, ready to use. However on my traveling rifles I have another scope sighted in and ready to go.
Also, on a rifle like a 375 I like having 2 different types of scopes, say a @ 3x9 for general use and @ a 1.5x5 for close in hunts.

Grizz,

Yes, I use my iron sights when going in the pucker brush after bear and having done it with both scope and iron, I prefer iron.

I have Warne QR mounts on my guide rifle, this setup not only serves as insurance (extra scope) but also gives the hunter versatility that cannot be had with fixed mounts.

As far as strength and accuracy, not a hiccup in 8 years of service and it gets pounded.

-Ron

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
grizz

This may not be a popular opinion but I think a second scope is way more valuable than any iron sights. I'll bet in reality that very few people ever use the iron sights if they've even sighted them in.

Mark

My theory in putting my .375 ULTRA MAG together.
Good post.

quote:

Originally posted by BusMaster007:

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
grizz

This may not be a popular opinion but I think a second scope is way more valuable than any iron sights. I'll bet in reality that very few people ever use the iron sights if they've even sighted them in.

Mark

My theory in putting my .375 ULTRA MAG together.
Good post.

Well folks the issue is if you want them or not! If you don't don't have them, and if you do, make sure you have good ones!

I will not hunt with a rifle that is not equipt with quality iron sights, even if my main sight is a scope. All my rifles are so equipt, and all scopes are in QD rings and bases, with the exception of most of my double rifles.

Let's just look at it like this for a second. You have a rifle that is 18,000 miles from home, and a $20,000 hunt rideing on it finishing that hunt. Now your scope get busted, if you are in camp when you see this, then a PRE-ZEROED extra scope in a set of QD rings slips right on, no fuss, and no ammo that is imposible to find in Kotzabou, or the LUANGWA VALLEY, Zambia, is wasted. One shot fored at a paper box, and you're ready. That is one reason for QDs that return to zero. Now you have mounted your extra scope, and a tracker drops your rifle and damages that scope! Not likely, you say, then you have never had to deal with trackers in Africa.

NOW! even if your first scope was not damaged, and the one you are useing is damaged in the discription above. Your extra scope is in camp, or in the backki, or your boat on shore five miles away, and you have a trophy of a life time standing looking at you from only 50 yds, but you need to thread that bullet through a hole the size of a cantilope in the willows, or thorn. Do you think he will stay there while you go change scopes? I'd simply slip the scope off the rifle, and knock hell out of him with the irons! BUTTTTTTTTTT, sometimes it is just a better set of sights for fighting, if you have some quality iron sights, the you can shoot instinctively with, like in the tight willows with a wounded brown bear

Murphy is a devious little bastard, and he will dampen your hunt if he can! I choose to let him try a couple of times before he puts me out of business. Gentlemen, I ask no-one to shoot, or hunt with my rifles, and I do nothing without a reason, and the reasons above, are mine for haveing a scope, extra scope, in QD mounts, and quality Iron sights on all my hunting rifles, and I can absolutely use them both. Others may do as it pleases them, but I hunt on a fixed income, and can't afford to dump a multi thousand dollar hunt just so my rifle look smooth!

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by BusMaster007:

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
grizz

This may not be a popular opinion but I think a second scope is way more valuable than any iron sights. I'll bet in reality that very few people ever use the iron sights if they've even sighted them in.

Mark

My theory in putting my .375 ULTRA MAG together.
Good post.

Well folks the issue is if you want them or not! If you don't don't have them, and if you do, make sure you have good ones!

I will not hunt with a rifle that is not equipt with quality iron sights, even if my main sight is a scope. All my rifles are so equipt, and all scopes are in QD rings and bases, with the exception of most of my double rifles.

Let's just look at it like this for a second. You have a rifle that is 18,000 miles from home, and a $20,000 hunt rideing on it finishing that hunt. Now your scope get busted, if you are in camp when you see this, then a PRE-ZEROED extra scope in a set of QD rings slips right on, no fuss, and no ammo that is imposible to find in Kotzabou, or the LUANGWA VALLEY, Zambia, is wasted. One shot fored at a paper box, and you're ready. That is one reason for QDs that return to zero. Now you have mounted your extra scope, and a tracker drops your rifle and damages that scope! Not likely, you say, then you have never had to deal with trackers in Africa.

NOW! even if your first scope was not damaged, and the one you are useing is damaged in the discription above. Your extra scope is in camp, or in the backki, or your boat on shore five miles away, and you have a trophy of a life time standing looking at you from only 50 yds, but you need to thread that bullet through a hole the size of a cantilope in the willows, or thorn. Do you think he will stay there while you go change scopes? I'd simply slip the scope off the rifle, and knock hell out of him with the irons! BUTTTTTTTTTT, sometimes it is just a better set of sights for fighting, if you have some quality iron sights, the you can shoot instinctively with, like in the tight willows with a wounded brown bear

Murphy is a devious little bastard, and he will dampen your hunt if he can! I choose to let him try a couple of times before he puts me out of business. Gentlemen, I ask no-one to shoot, or hunt with my rifles, and I do nothing without a reason, and the reasons above, are mine for haveing a scope, extra scope, in QD mounts, and quality Iron sights on all my hunting rifles, and I can absolutely use them both. Others may do as it pleases them, but I hunt on a fixed income, and can't afford to dump a multi thousand dollar hunt just so my rifle look smooth!

"I rest my case, your Honor..."

Here we have yet another example of the 'CRF/Africa' crowd stating irrelevant 'facts' in a Forum that just does NOT apply.
First of all, this is the ALASKA Hunting Forum.
"... then a PRE-ZEROED extra scope in a set of QD rings slips right on, no fuss, and no ammo that is imposible to find in Kotzabou, or the LUANGWA VALLEY, Zambia, is wasted." --- doesn't apply. Sorry.

Second,
"...Your extra scope is in camp, or in the backki, or your boat on shore five miles away, and you have a trophy of a life time standing looking at you from only 50 yds, but you need to thread that bullet through a hole the size of a cantilope in the willows, or thorn..."
Sorry. Doesn't apply again. YOU are in ALASKA.
YOU brought the extra scope and it's in your pack.

"Murphy is a devious little bastard, and he will dampen your hunt if he can!"
I agree with this statement, because it doesn't matter WHERE the hunt takes place!

I believe the reason for taking off the sights is because you INTEND to use another scope in their place.
Some people SEE better through a scope, so open sights are NOT an option, they are a hinderance.
It takes about as much time to replace the scope as it does to TRY and use the open sights you CAN'T see through...!
USING an extra scope is as reassuring to someone who cannot use open sights, as is using open sights is to someone who CAN use them...if that makes any sense...
Most Alaskan hunts don't cost $20,000 and aren't 18,000 miles from 'HOME'.

My point is:
The whole fucking WORLD doesn't use CRF in AFRICA for CAPE BUFFALO.
Some people just DON'T do that!

FWIW: I can´t shoot a rifle set up for scope use comfortably when switching to irons and vise versa. The stock is either set up for one or the other but is never right for both. If it is half way then it is just wrong for both. Some of my rifles are set up for irons and some for scopes. I like both and just choose which set up depending on the hunt.

Several time when hunting in rain, snow, or those times when the scope lenses just seem to stay fogged up, I have removed the scope to usse the iron sights. Also when going into wet alders or wet thick brush I have removed the scope.
If you have a scope in QD mounts and iron sights that are sighted in it just gives you another option.
Plus sometimes it is just fun to hunt with iron sights.

Well, I'm rackin' up the posts in this Topic, so I'll have to come up with something worth leaving it alone.

Bottom line would be to have the determination to actually sight the rifle in with the ammo you WILL BE USING...with open sights.
THEN, IF you EVER must remove your scope, you WILL be sighted in for that eventuality.

OR ---

Sight in as above, only sight in with your SCOPE the same way that you will be using with those open sights and the same ammo.
KEEP the sight in with your scope in mind.

KILL IT. GRILL IT.

quote:

Originally posted by BusMaster007:




All my rifles are so equipt, and all scopes are in QD rings and bases, with the exception of most of my double rifles.

Now your scope get busted, if you are in camp when you see this, then a PRE-ZEROED extra scope in a set of QD rings slips right on, no fuss, and no ammo that is imposible to find in Kotzabou,(SPL) or the LUANGWA VALLEY, Zambia,


My point is:
The whole fucking WORLD doesn't use CRF in AFRICA for CAPE BUFFALO.
Some people just DON'T do that!

Man you get off on sarchasm don't you? What possible difference does the country you are hunting have to do with the way a hunting rifle is set up? If you will notice every indication I posted included Alaska, as well as other places where you might hunt. If you are away from the things you need at any given time, it makes no difference if you are 5 miles from help, or what you need accross the tundra, or 50 miles from another rifle, in Africa, your still hard up for a sight.

For your information, I hunt Alaska every year, and I only hunt Africa once in a while, and the set up I describe is just as usefull on a New Mexico Mule deer hunt as it is in Africa, or Canada, or ALASKA! The system can still save a hunt no matter where it is or how much it costs! As for your Alaska hunts not being $20K, maybe not for a resident, but the average non resident will drop $15K on a Trophy Brown bear hunt there, when you include the $1K comercial airfare, and the $2K bush plane costs, along with a $500 Brownie tag, and a $80 license, on top of a $9K to $11K hunt!

BushMaster7, you've got a problem, it seems! I don't belive I posted anything to elicite the rant you posted. If you will notice my first sentence was,

"Well folks the issue is if you want them or not! If you don't don't have them, and if you do, make sure you have good ones!"

and as I said above it is simply up to the owner of the rifle, and the hunter who is paying for his hunt, to build his rifle the way he wants! Whether, or not you realize it or not I'm quite aware this is the ALASKA HUNTING FORUM, and my opinion still applies, whether you like it or not, since it didn't cost you one red cent!! It seems you think since you don't agree with my system, I shouldn't post it here, because YOU own this forum,and ALASKA! Well here!

quote:

I hunt Alaska every year

Mac,let us know when you're coming next! I'm sure a range session/DR shoot/scotch swilling session could be easily aranged w/the AK Branch of AR.

Bob

I use all three. The primary scope, a back up on QD mounts obviously pre-sighted in and good iron sights. Depending on the rifle/game in question,(but since I'm part of that {sic} fucking CRF Africa crowd although I also use Weatherbys) let's assume dangerous game so my must have irons hit dead on at 25 yards. In africa one normally does not carry back packs, but the trackers do and my back up scope is carried there.
Incidentally, the backup scope I carry is for the DG rifle only. In a pinch I can always put it on the light rifle, but that would take re-sighting in and all that stuff as normally those rifles have no irons. Frankly, hunting is hunting and prudent, sound judgement applies anywhere. No most Alskan hunts don't cost 20 grand, but have you priced an Alaskan Brown bear hunt lately? Given the choice, AND THE TIME, I'd opt for slapping the spare scope on there, but there are times when the irons are all you have in a pinch. jorge

For me, some rifles cry out for iron back-up's and some don't. On a 26" bbl'd 257 Wby they'd look out of place as well as being unfitted to the rifle's purpose. My 21" bbl'd 30-06 looks "right" with them and they fit the rifle's mission as a general purpose NA rig:

Mac,

I am with you. It is amazing how much stuff will come out of the pack on the second day after climbing several thousand feet the first day. I want good irons on the rifle and the back up scope in the tent. Really good irons cost serious $$ but could be priceless in the bush.

HBH

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
For me, some rifles cry out for iron back-up's and some don't. On a 26" bbl'd 257 Wby they'd look out of place as well as being unfitted to the rifle's purpose. My 21" bbl'd 30-06 looks "right" with them and they fit the rifle's mission as a general purpose NA rig:

nice rifle. I just finished putting together an ABC (assorted bits combined) rifle very similar. pre-64 M70, take-off classic stainless 30-06 bbl, sako sights, boyds stock that has been trimmed down a bunch

[url="http://www.hunt101.com/?p=330470&c=500&z=1"] [/url]

as far as the original question, I like to have good irons on all my hunting rifles, and I shoot them and am confident to 200 yards in good light. I'm not organized enough to remember a spare scope.

Nice rifle free-miner. How'd you trim down that Boyd's stock and what does she weigh loaded and field ready? Thanks.

DB

I have irons on my 416 Taylor...





for those days when your stalking brown bears through tunnels formed from devils club and gooseberry bushes.

That's 'point and shoot' time, not screw around with a scope time.

Freeminer, I like that rifle... of course!

BW, your Taylor has always been a favorite of mine... truly a great rig!

BTW, which stock is that? MC?

quote:

Originally posted by Dungbeetle:
Nice rifle free-miner. How'd you trim down that Boyd's stock and what does she weigh loaded and field ready? Thanks.

DB

thanks, I trimmed the exterior of the stock with a spoke-shave and a rat-tail rasp. I cut 3/4" off the forend and hollowed it out with a gouge, then drilled out the buttstock with 1" holes. with a 1/2" decellerator, studs, bedding, and epoxy finish the stock weighs 27 ounces.

With featherweight (alloy) fp/tg and a Leup M8-4x in steel bases and Burris Zee rings it weighs 7-6 unloaded.

Geez, Mac...
Hey, sorry for the rant. It wasn't personal.

I commented on NOT using open sights in response to another post that I agreed with.
I even agreed with you about Murphy...

My point about people who don't see well using open sights is valid. The scope has only one plane to look into vs. 3 lining up open sights.
If you wear glasses and lose them, either system becomes a moot point.
You and jorge have the best system with double redundancy in mind. Good planning.

Having irons on the gun and taking off the scope to get to them, including putting the scope down vs. replacing the scope and the motions that requires --- and expecting the former to be 'faster' or 'better' PLUS have the animal wait for you to do either is, to me, wishful thinking.

I think if you get caught trying to change over, your animal will most likely walk away by the time you get done.
If I have a defective scope, then I'll have time to switch to the other scope because that shot will most likely be a lost opportunity.
If it's a charging bear, I'd rather GUESS at my shot than see if I was fast enough switch before being ripped a new one.
TIME favors the animal. DISTANCE favors the hunter.



Yes, I do get off on sarcasm. It's a way of life on these Forums...and others.
I only have a problem with instant thread hijackings by the Africa/CRF crowd. Try posting something in the reverse and see where that gets ya...
Opinions are free, even if everyone doesn't share them.

I'll try to refrain from posting in haste;
try to read each word in every post and take it in context;
try to not be so, uh, profane...;
and I'll sell all my property in Alaska and this Forum.

Thanks for sharing your valuable experiences and ideas on the different sighting systems.

Brad,

She's a classic S.E. Alaska beauty. Nothing like Mother Natures very own corrosion to lock down ring screws and give her own version of 'blueing' to the front site (which used to be 'in-the-white').

I just gotta make sure the Leupold release levers haven't locked up before I go hunting.

As far as the stock...

It should be a McMillan, but alas it's just a plain-jane Winny cheapo plastic stock. I did bed the rifle with black Marine Tex out a couple inches past the recoil lug (just one on this big bore.)

I've got a McMillan stock under the bench that needs to be inletted still. It's practically a blank, even the bolt notch is uncut.

thanks, I trimmed the exterior of the stock with a spoke-shave and a rat-tail rasp. I cut 3/4" off the forend and hollowed it out with a gouge, then drilled out the buttstock with 1" holes. with a 1/2" decellerator, studs, bedding, and epoxy finish the stock weighs 27 ounces.

With featherweight (alloy) fp/tg and a Leup M8-4x in steel bases and Burris Zee rings it weighs 7-6 unloaded.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, f-m. Again, a fine looking rig.

DB

Thee was a study performed by a few experienced ALASKAN guides (see, not african) where they tested their ability to "get on target" at close range as in a charging animal with iron and low power scopes. The low power scopes won every time. I think it was published in Rifle magazine and that has been my observation. As stated previously, my irons hit dead on at 25 and within a 3" circle at 100 so I don't have to mess around with re-sighting.

BM007, the only one here that's brought up the africa-crf stuff was you. Since it doesn't apply to the crux of the argument, why bring it up? I've stated twice now, three counting this post that I prefer a scope over irons anyday for DG at all ranges, but having said that, a DG rifle sohuld have irons. It is much faster for example if you have a set of good QD mounts like EAWS to dispose of a bad scope and get on the irons than it is to take off a scope, reintall a new one and re aquire the target. jorge

BW, that rifle's a lot like your boat... a practical tool to get the job done without any precious fluff!

OK, if the apologies and chastisements are over with, I've got a couple of questions regarding the specifics of the QD setup.

BW has the Leupold QR on his .416.
Are the levers easy enough to turn by hand when the scope needs to come off, or is a pair of pliers necessary?
I'm wondering if they tighten up under recoil.

Leupold also has the QRW style.
Does anyone see an advantage of one over the other?
I would think the QR requires less time to take apart.

Busmaster,

I can release the levers by hand, unless they've been sitting for a coupe months. Then the corrosion seems to lock'em up. But when oiled up and worked free, they move just fine.

I don't know about the other version of Leupold QR rings.

jorge,

Scope are fine and dandy when they're clean.

Them guides should try that test in the rain, or in very wet terrain. You either use scope caps, or your lense get wet and have bits of foliage stuck on them.

I'd take irons over a fogged up scope anyday.

BW: Yet another reason why irons are a must, but one can mitigate the rain on the lenses by judicious use of lens covers (I do).

BM007: THe Leupold mounts are simple and relatively easy to use, but I prefer Warne's or if you want to spend the bucks, then EAW.THey are smooth and it only takes one quick motion to unlock and rotate the scope out and get on the irons very quickly, but they are expensive They do have recoil limitations though, a 375 H&H is about as high as I want to go recoil-wise. jorge

[I have been using a very low profile swivel type QD mount on a few of my rifles for over 10 years now.
I use the iron sights on several of my rifles quite often Something I have never gotten round to but intend on doing is getting a nice rear peep I can slip onto the rear on a section of weaver rail.

I highly rate QD mounts.

Gentlemen, this post is to no one in particular, but to everyone in general. By way of explanation of one instance where a fine trophy was taken because I had Iron sights on my scoped rifle. This was not in Alaska, nor was it in Africa,it matters little, because it would have applied in either place, no matter the rifle, or the animal being stalked! This has been posted before by me, so if you have already seen this click on by!

This took place in Pueblo wilderness area of New Mexico,about 7000 ft above sea level, and the quary was a 30 1/2" spread Muledeer, first spotted at over 600 yds, down the same ridge I was on. However to get to him, I had to drop over the side of the canyon wall, below a caprock, to get around a point jutting out into the canyon, because to go dirrectly to the deer, I would be in the open for over 400 yds. The rifle I was carrying was a Mannlicher Shoenauer MCA 1961 rifle, with a 3-9X40 Redfield scope, and chambered for 243 Win. It was equiped with G&H QD lever rings and bases. As I rounded the very steep point, a foot slipped on a loose rock, and I got over ballanced with the rifle in my right hand, on the canyon side. I was faced with dropping the rifle, or going over the side with it! This little rifle would stick five rounds in a tight one hole group at 100 yds with a 100 gr Hornady bullet skipping along at 3000 fps evey time, and was my pride and joy, for deer, in cross canyon country. The rifle clattered down about 15 ft in the rocks before coming to rest below, on the edge of a 500 ft drop. I was sick as I climed down to the little rifle, looking at scratches visable from where I stood 15 ft above. I got to the rifle and picked it up, and shouldered it! All I could see was a little light through the scope. When I took it down, and looked at the scope the front lens houseing was looking down at the top of the barrel, bent in front of the front ring. I had to take my foot and rebend the scope back up far enough so I could slide the QDs off the rifle to the rear. I quickly looked at the irons, and they were OK, as far as I could tell. I stuck the scope under my belt, and climed up to see if the deer was still bedded. He was, so I made my way another 200 yds out of sight below the rim, and eased up to find the deer looking right at me at 200 yds. I slipped that little Mannlicher rifle over the rim and rested it on my hat. With the 200 yd sight flipped up, I placed the front bead on his chest as he was faceing me quartered slightly. As the little rifle bucked, the deer's head slammed back enough to hit his back with his antlers, and simply rolled down the slope from the base of the junipor he was bedded under, and never moved again. That 30 1/2" rack is on my wall today 30 yrs later, and when I look at it I remember every second of that stalk, and shot!

Where I was, in relation to my camp, was about 8 miles accross several canyons,with the sun going down, where my other rifle was, and only a sleeping bag, and a tarp on my pack frame ! If I had had a slick barrel, I don't think those antlers would be above where I'm typing this tonight, do you?

......................BYE!

That's a great story, Mac. Many of us would love to be in your shoes to tell one like it.

Fast forward 30 years...
Time was on your side because you had distance and the animal paid you 'no never mind'.
Either back-up irons or an extra scope for a slick bbl. would do the trick in this situation.

Still, in YOUR situation, you're right...you woluldn't be looking at the rack or telling us about it if it hadn't've happened the way it did!
Cool.

ETA: Good to know about the Leupold QR's, too.
Might be what I change on my, 'gasp!', MARLIN .45-70!!!

quote:

Originally posted by BusMaster007:
Time was on your side because you had distance and the animal paid you 'no never mind'.
Either back-up irons or an extra scope for a slick bbl. would do the trick in this situation.

Cool.

ETA: Good to know about the Leupold QR's, too.
Might be what I change on my, 'gasp!', MARLIN .45-70!!!

BusMaster007 , you seem to be hung up on the idea that the reason for QD rings, and bases, and iorn sights on a rifle is so you can qhickly take the scope off to get at the irons in a charge sittuation. This is not the case at all. The system is for exactly the same type of sittuation I described in New Mexico. In a tight place where you are in the crosshairs of a large bear, or other bite-back, you use what ever is on the rifle at the time. If it is a scope, then that is what you use.

The place where this type of system is, among others, valuable is when a wounded bear goes into the weeds, and you must go in after him. If you have hunted the willows in Alaska in September you know they are dripping wet, even more so than the open tundra which is like stepping into a shower bath. If you have scope caps, you must open them before you go into the willows, or alders. It will be very nice when the time comes to shoot fast, and your lenses are covered in water drops. The irons are not effected by rain, or snow for the most part, and are far easier to shoot instinctively over than a scope that you can't see through. The quality QDs make it easy to re-install the scope later without haveing to re-zero.

So all I'm saying is, the rifle with QDs, and quality iron sights, and a spare pre-zeroed scope in QDs, gives you some options that a slick barrel does not! Nobody with a lick of sense would remove a scope while standing a charge, but a very prudant man might remove it in aticipation of an impending charge. Or to make sure his rifle would finish the hunt, even if all the scopes went out of service, which is unlikely. However, regardless of your belief, there are places where irons are superior to a scope sight on a hunting rifle, and the statement that they are a henderance, is simply not true. They don't weigh anything, and are not in the way at all, if properly designed.

Now! I'm through with this string, and this forum!

Well, MacD37, since you're done with this thread, I guess you're going to miss my post...

I am not 'hung up' on doing a scope-switcheroo during a charge.
I do like the idea of having options, but in some cases people choose to go with one or the other, depending on their preference or need.
In some cases, an individual may need to use a scope to SEE best with.
That's all I meant to convey.

jorge posted what I am alluding to here. SCOPES can be, and often are, faster to use.
"...Thee was a study performed by a few experienced ALASKAN guides (see, not african) where they tested their ability to "get on target" at close range as in a charging animal with iron and low power scopes. The low power scopes won every time..."
For some people, iron sights just will not suffice. They simply are not able to use them effectively.
In that case, 'true' is what works for them, blowing your statement of 'superiority' out of the water, regardless of YOUR beliefs.
Sometimes a scope IS the answer. That's what I was agreeing to in the first place.

I take it you don't appreciate someone challenging your 'authori-tay' on this venue and see that you begin to make comments intended to belittle the challenger.
You come off as 'above' it all.
Well, fancy that.

Sorry the thread got sidetracked a bit by our disagreement or whatever it is.