I do not like iron sights on rifles because I use rifles only with scopes, and I think iron sights spoil the appearance of a rifle -- in my opinion they make it look bad.

I have a Remington 721 in 30-06 that I like a lot, except that it has the stock with a lot of drop in it -- that amount of drop in rifle stocks was standard in that era when rifles were made to be used without scopes, because that stock shape allows your eye to fall naturally along with the sight-picture of the iron sights.

But with the use of scopes the stock should be more straight so your eyeline is raised up to the point where it naturally falls at scope level. Being accustomed to scopes and rifles made to be used with scopes, I find the large amount of drop in the 721 stock (and other rifles like it, mostly from an earlier, pre-scope era) quite unsightly and aesthetically unappealing.

quote:

Originally posted by LE270:
I do not like iron sights on rifles because I use rifles only with scopes, and I think iron sights spoil the appearance of a rifle -- in my opinion they make it look bad.

I have a Remington 721 in 30-06 that I like a lot, except that it has the stock with a lot of drop in it -- that amount of drop in rifle stocks was standard in that era when rifles were made to be used without scopes, because that stock shape allows your eye to fall naturally along with the sight-picture of the iron sights.

But with the use of scopes the stock should be more straight so your eyeline is raised up to the point where it naturally falls at scope level. Being accustomed to scopes and rifles made to be used with scopes, I find the large amount of drop in the 721 stock (and other rifles like it, mostly from an earlier, pre-scope era) quite unsightly and aesthetically unappealing.

quote:

Originally posted by LE270:
I do not like iron sights on rifles because I use rifles only with scopes, and I think iron sights spoil the appearance of a rifle -- in my opinion they make it look bad.

I have a Remington 721 in 30-06 that I like a lot, except that it has the stock with a lot of drop in it -- that amount of drop in rifle stocks was standard in that era when rifles were made to be used without scopes, because that stock shape allows your eye to fall naturally along with the sight-picture of the iron sights.

But with the use of scopes the stock should be more straight so your eyeline is raised up to the point where it naturally falls at scope level. Being accustomed to scopes and rifles made to be used with scopes, I find the large amount of drop in the 721 stock (and other rifles like it, mostly from an earlier, pre-scope era) quite unsightly and aesthetically unappealing.

So, restock it.

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:

So, restock it.

That would be one way to go.

But the stock that is on it now is a highly figured and checkered one. I don't know whether this was a Remington-issued delux version, or if it is an after-market stock. Also, the sights on the rifle are better than the standard-issue on bottom-of-the-line 721s -- the rear sight on this one is a fold-down one -- so I think that this is either a delux version of the 721 (Remington did make some of those), or a standard version that had its stock and sights replaced with better grade ones by someone in the past before I got the rifle.

Given that, I prefer to keep it as it is.

So you like it but don't like it. I'm not sure what the point of your post is.

quote:

Originally posted by SWD:
So you like it but don't like it. I'm not sure what the point of your post is.

That's right -- I'm ambivalent about that rifle because I both like it and don't like it.

I do feel cheated or aesthetically insulted when I see a rifle that I like otherwise but that has iron sights. I think that rifles should come from the factory without iron sights, and that iron sights should be a special-order item for people who really want them.

So just ship that ol' girl to me and you won't have to upset your sencibilities whenever your gaze just happens to cross that rifle. I'll be more than happy to provide the care and feeding for such a "red-headed step child".

Ah, that's what custom gunsmiths are for...enjoy.

quote:

do feel cheated or aesthetically insulted when I see a rifle that I like otherwise but that has iron sights

So is the world of guns supposed to step into line so not to offend your visual persepective on guns? Life just isn't fair.

I really liked my first wife. She was young, asthetically appealing but she had small breasts. Even though she wore a top most of the time, I still couldn't get past those little breasts. One day I remembered the good lord gave me balls, and in excercising them I made a decision. I got rid of her for a more pleasing model. I would recommend you do the same with that offending rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by Customstox:

So is the world of guns supposed to step into line so not to offend your visual persepective on guns? Life just isn't fair.

Of course (to both of your points).

So,
you can call RMF or GAG, and order you a nicely figured stock, that fits your tastes better, and will be figured and to a more american modern classic.

Of course, you could also put a leather cheekpiece on it, like they did with the springfield 1903a4, and it would work better with the scope.

You would find lots of guys willing to trade you a newer m700 with nice wood, for the classic rem721.

But, that's okay, some folks like classic guns, some folks like more modern guns, and some folks just don't know what they like yet

best of luck
jeffe

With advancing age you will find you will not be able to use iron sights easily. I would recommend that you use them as much as you can until then.

We are somewhat opposites when it comes to rifle appearance.

1. I find the huge blocky German scopes horribly out of place on anything short of a 50 BMG.
A Schmidt Bender is about as pleasing to the eye as an Edsel or a Citroen.
2. Many of the American designed 1" scopes look ok on a rifle but they are too short both in tube length and eye relief for comfortable use.
3. If I have to use a scope on a hunting rifle I much prefer smaller scopes which have gone out of fashion.
4. I prefer the handling characteristics of a rifle with no scope unless it is a bench rest rifle.
5. I don't care to tie up money in optics when the money could be tied up in a rifle.
6. Rifle scopes in general are a poor investment except to use for testing loads.

This is a funny thread. Scopes, IMO, mar the appearance of DGRs...which your Remmy is not. Scopes are one more thing on which to hang up in the thick brush. They can become useless in very wet weather. They also tend to cause many to take shots they should not take.

I'm just about finished with a highwall 30-40 that will have only irons...no scope...and am part way done with a No 1 375 flanged H&H that will wear only irons. My 404 Jeff does have a 3x Leupy on it, but the scope detracts from it's appearance. To each his own I suppose.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

You would find lots of guys willing to trade you a newer m700 with nice wood, for the classic rem721.

Name one, and it has to be a real person and not made up.

quote:

Originally posted by SWD:
So you like it but don't like it. I'm not sure what the point of your post is.

Me either.

quote:

Originally posted by ACRecurve:
This is a funny thread. Scopes, IMO, mar the appearance of DGRs...which your Remmy is not. Scopes are one more thing on which to hang up in the thick brush. They can become useless in very wet weather. They also tend to cause many to take shots they should not take.

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:

With advancing age you will find you will not be able to use iron sights easily. I would recommend that you use them as much as you can until then.

I reached the age where I am unable to use iron sights some time ago, alas!

I grew up on a farm in Pennsylvania, where I had a scope (a now-ancient Weaver J4, I think it was) put on my .22 rimfire (a Stevens tube-type autoloader) when I was maybe 13 or thereabouts, and I've used scopes on rifles ever since. In fact, I have no use for an unscoped rifle.

With that scoped .22, I was able to hit nailheads in the corn grainary from about 50 feet across the way, or bumblebees as they sat on a wood beam in the barn (there was a bumblebee nest in a beam there). I also shot a lot of groundhogs with it -- hunting groundhogs was my great summer sport. I learned to stalk them so I could get to about 30 yards from them, and then I could shoot them with a .22 rimfire with regular high speed solid bullet ammunition (not hollowpoint -- not accurate enough).

To me, a rifle without a scope is incomplete and more-or-less useless.

Personally, I wouldn't (and do not) own a single rifle without iron sights - preferably a Lyman 48 or one of it's more recent incarnations.

Only vegetarians, liberals, and gay people shoot rifles without iron sights.

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

You would find lots of guys willing to trade you a newer m700 with nice wood, for the classic rem721.

Name one, and it has to be a real person and not made up.

Right. If someone is willing to trade a new or nearly new 700 Mountain Rifle (the one with box, not detachable magazine) in .260 Rem or 7mm/08 let me know and I'll make the swap.

Lloyd,

My bifocals and I understand deteriorating eyesight. All my rifles (other than the ones I mentioned) wear scopes. I've just gotten to the point where I'd rather spend the time getting closer. I've had to go to larger front beads and fiber optic beads and rear apertures to be able to see well enough with the irons to use them effectively...and that blocks out a lot of vision field & reduces the ranges at which I am assured of making a clean, quick kill. Scoped rifles are definitely easier to shoot!

quote:

Originally posted by LE270:

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:

With advancing age you will find you will not be able to use iron sights easily. I would recommend that you use them as much as you can until then.

I reached the age where I am unable to use iron sights some time ago, alas!

I grew up on a farm in Pennsylvania, where I had a scope (a now-ancient Weaver J4, I think it was) put on my .22 rimfire (a Stevens tube-type autoloader) when I was maybe 13 or thereabouts, and I've used scopes on rifles ever since. In fact, I have no use for an unscoped rifle.

With that scoped .22, I was able to hit nailheads in the corn grainary from about 50 feet across the way, or bumblebees as they sat on a wood beam in the barn (there was a bumblebee nest in a beam there). I also shot a lot of groundhogs with it -- hunting groundhogs was my great summer sport. I learned to stalk them so I could get to about 30 yards from them, and them I could shoot them with a .22 rimfire with regular high speed solid bullet (not hollowpoint -- not accurate enough) ammunition.

To me, a rifle without a scope is incomplete and more-or-less useless.

Lloyd,
I too grew up on a farm and the available rifles consisted of a 12C Remington pump with a ruined bore and a M44 Mossberg-the heavy target rifle.
I found that a receiver sight could be pretty useful before I swapped two fishing rods for a Mossberg scope and mount. A few more .22s and scopes came and went before I got a really good scope and rifle combination. I can still sort of use the iron sights on a military rifle if it has a long barrel though I can't really see the rear sight. However I can use an aperture rear fairly well. On a short barreled carbine I can't see the front sight either. However using aperture sights front and rear I can still shoot close to one inch 100 yard groups if the target is a about an 8" black bullseye.

I sm the exact opposite. I own many rifles with no sights, but they just don't look finished without them. I am slowly putting NECG sights and barrel band swivels and front sights on all of mine.

Golly-Gee Mr. LE -
-

Talk about people taking the same path and ending up in different places (which I now am about to do), you and I are a perfect example of that.

I, too, was raised dirt poor on a farm and my dad gave me my first couple of rifles...a military surplus Dutch "deer gun" when I was 9, and a .22 when I was 11 or 12. The .22 was.....Voila!....a Mossberg 42-MB, or something like that...anyway, a 7 shot bolt action without the folding forend, and with a 7-shot clip that you took a thin bolt out of to open it up for .22 Longs & .22 LR rounds. Leaving the bolt in would cause it to work right with .22 Shorts. It had the de rigeur open sights on the barrel and swinging aperture sight on the rear of the receiver.

My first scope was also a J-4 I bought with egg sales money, and I shot several wheelbarrow loads of gray squirrels , rabbits, and quail for suppers with it.

Then I later went to better rifles and better scopes, finally ending up shoooting BR with 40-X scopes.

BUT, somewhere there you and I parted ways. For the last 30 years or so, I have more and more strongly felt that any hunting rifle without iron sights looks plumb-ass nekid!!

I've now got well over 100 rifles, about 80 of which are bona fide huntin' rifles, and all except one of them have iron sights. The one which doesn't is a big hairy Weatherby magnum bought 60 years ago when I didn't know any better.

It may be that having spent a passel of hunting seasons in the far northern Canada bush may have made me ponder more on what the hell good a rifle with a non-functioning scope really is...especially a few hundred miles from the nearest road, and hurting for provisions.

So, though I still like to use a scope whenever I can, I sure feel comforted by the aspect of seeing firmly mounted, sturdy iron sights on those barrels too.

Best wishes. A good thread.

AC

Here's what you do: Cut that stock at the wrist and take a wedge of wood from the top to the center of the wrist, and glue that wedge int othe bottom side of the cut. Viola! You have less drop and most of the original wood!

Just in case, I'm only kidding.

quote:

I really liked my first wife. She was young, asthetically appealing but she had small breasts. Even though she wore a top most of the time, I still couldn't get past those little breasts. One day I remembered the good lord gave me balls, and in excercising them I made a decision. I got rid of her for a more pleasing model. I would recommend you do the same with that offending rifle.

You never figured that declining eyesight might cure the problem like it can cure the dislike of scopes?

quote:

We are somewhat opposites when it comes to rifle appearance.

1. I find the huge blocky German scopes horribly out of place on anything short of a 50 BMG.
A Schmidt Bender is about as pleasing to the eye as an Edsel or a Citroen.
2. Many of the American designed 1" scopes look ok on a rifle but they are too short both in tube length and eye relief for comfortable use.
3. If I have to use a scope on a hunting rifle I much prefer smaller scopes which have gone out of fashion.
4. I prefer the handling characteristics of a rifle with no scope unless it is a bench rest rifle.
5. I don't care to tie up money in optics when the money could be tied up in a rifle.
6. Rifle scopes in general are a poor investment except to use for testing loads.

A scope has one job, to get you as precisely on target as quickly as possible. Those German scopes may not be beautiful, but there's no arguing that they get the job done in spades. There is nothing at all homely about them from the back side. Once you get them into working position they are positively beautiful.

quote:

Originally posted by LE270:

But with the use of scopes the stock should be more straight so your eyeline is raised up to the point where it naturally falls at scope level.

Not true, actually.

The slope from cheek to shoulder is more or less constant regardless if using open sights or scopes. The cheek is higher than the shoulder. That angle should be the same for both......the whole plane being raised the commensurate distance from open sights up to scope.

"Straight" stocks don't preserve this "slope".....nor respect the differing heights of cheek and shoulder.

"Straight" stocks were invented to lessen recoil. So shooters can leave an inch of butt extended above their shoulders when shooting them offhand........which most do.

Also, unless a monte carlo comb is used, the comb nose can't be raised much on a bolt action because it interferes with the drawn bolt. The only way to raise the cheekpiece is to raise the butt only. IMHO it makes for an ugly straight stock. The monte carlo comb makes a lot of sense, but people think they're ugly.

My personal preference is Jack O'Connor's recipe. Comb nose height just to clear bolt.......butt a half inch drop from that. I find that works well for me....for both open and scope.

As the French say, cha·cun à son goût. But there is another thread here with pictures of a potentially beautiful rifle being made for a customer by Duane Wiebe.

Unfortunately, the beauty of that rifle is ruined for me by having iron sights and a barrel band sling swivel installed on it.