The American custom gumankers have come a long way to make exelent guns fitted with our moderns sights, the rifle-scope.

But we still see a crash of style and function as soon as a customer wants both scope and open sights.

We tend to hang on to the old, make guns that looks like the classic guns of the 1920's, and then mount scopes with a line of sights an inch or more higher than the line of sights for the irons.

Ask any trapshooter, how he shoots with a gun that is only 1/2, or a 1/4, or even 1/8 inch off. Does he think it handles well?

Is it not interesting to make guns with both super elegance AND function?

Many of my customers are shooting competition with their hunting rifles. We have competitions were we shoot 30 shots, 5 shots each at 6 different animal targets from 30 to 200 yards.
We shoot regular prone, sitting/kneeling and standing offhand, no slings alowed. Or we shoot 5x5 shots at a running target, standing offhand.
Scope fitting is essensial, everyone need good contact between cheek and stock to be able too shoot well. Common knowledge.

So all theese beautiful guns we drewl over, having line of sights way off - are we happy about that? Is looks - how we think it should look - more important than function?

The only way to achieve proper function for the combination of glass and irons, are higher irons and lower glass. Scopes kissing the contour of the barreled action, raised irons to the same line of sights.
But i see very little willingness to go that way.

Why is that?

Adjustable combs are common on trap guns.I've never seen one on a rifle. Would your dual use shooter accept an adjustable comb?

Its like high heels & women, youd be surprised what they will forgo in sensible function & comfort,
simply to look good.

The way I see it is most hunting guns are set up for scopes usage. On most custom rifles detatchable ring are used more than not. So the primary use is the scope, and iron sights are there just in case the scope fails, one can keep hunting. I think you have a good point but I dont think the average or better hunter/shooter takes the scope on and off and uses both, My thinking is most hunting/shooting is done mostly with the scope. Of course that being said the next 10 posts will tell me they shoot both ways... and maybe so. I would think they shoot\hunt Dangerous Game. But most people I am aware of shoot/hunt primarly with a scoped gun.
I was a better iron sight shooter 30 years ago!

Just because it doesn't fit you don't assume it's wrong for everybody. I much prefer a stock with more drop than most people like. I personally find it a lot more comfortable and fast to shoot with my head in a more upright position than having my face planted into a stock. I also think it reduces felt recoil. I don't shoot compitition nor am I a target shooter but I'm a pretty good shot and a succesful hunter. To each his own, form follows function and may the force be with you.


Terry

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
Just because it doesn't fit you don't assume it's wrong for everybody.
Terry

However you slice it, no rifle can fit as well with either scope or irons when there is an inch between line of sights. Even if the gun cost a million dollars. No matter who the gun was made for...?

quote:

Originally posted by Bent Fossdal:

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
Just because it doesn't fit you don't assume it's wrong for everybody.
Terry

However you slice it, no rifle can fit as well with either scope or irons when there is an inch between line of sights. Even if the gun cost a
million dollars. No matter who the gun was made for...?

Cost has nothing to do with it. What you didn't quote was were I said right for me. That's all that matters if I'm building it or having it built for me. It's not worth arguing about so I'll leave it at that.

quote:

However you slice it, no rifle can fit as well with either scope or irons when there is an inch between line of sights.

I would not agree. It depends on how the iron sights are intended to be used and how the 'scope is intended to be used versus practicality.

I like my rifles 'scoped using a Leupold High Standard Ring as I use a 4x (or 6x) 'scope with both eyes open.

Like a shot gun. And they have to be that high mounted so that the drop is the same as on my shot guns.

Now if I wanted a rifle just for iron sight use - like a DG rifle or a service rifle - I'd put more drop on the stock.

So you could build a rifle with a lot of drop for iron sight only use. You'll find on a lot of Holland's rifles that there is less than 1/2" between the sights and the 'scope.

All the scoped bolt rifles I build for myself have the lowest scope mount possible, for the reasons stated. Also all these scoped bolt rifles have a raised Monte Carlo comb & cheekpiece since my face requires it for good support & a good cheek weld, and I don't care that the current fashion is for straight combs.

Many folks nowadays specify the details of their rifles for best looks, or rather for currently-fashionable looks, rather than usability. And fashion-over-function is fine for most rifles since most hunters can't actually take advantage of the best fit anyway. And most high-end custom rifles today are commissioned by the sort of folks who are absolutely RULED by fashion and appearances and braggin' rights and oneupmanship among their moneyed peers, and they wouldn't dare appear with something so un-PC as a Monte Carlo! I mean, how could such an utter clod hold his head up in the company of his peers if his stuff didn't look just like theirs? (a little sarcasm here for emphasis)

But that's why they're called custom, you can have whatever you want within reason.

BTW I like Martini Cadets since they don't need a Monte Carlo to fit me even with a target scope mounted.
Regards, Joe

I imagine most rifles wearing both iron sights and a scope are primarily a scoped rifle, the irons being a back up and cosmetic to boot. Would I give up classic looks for a slight increase in function on a hunting rifle? No.

IMO, I think a lot of people form their opinions of how a stock handles based on how it shoots off a bench and not how works in the field.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by yeti:
Adjustable combs are common on trap guns.I've never seen one on a rifle. Would your dual use shooter accept an adjustable comb?

Yes, adjustable combs are fairly common over here, as many hunters use large objektive bells.
It is ugly, but it works.

This is obviously a touchy subject.
We often hear about guns referred to as "handeled like a britthish double".
I thought that was the goal for any smith on any gun, to have the customer claim something like that.
And I just do not see how that can be accomplished when cheek-contakt varies about an inch between glass and irons...

quote:

IMO, I think a lot of people form their opinions of how a stocks handles based on how it shoots off a bench.

For most people 99% of their shooting if from the bench.

Dempsey, TC1, Ramrod, I think we are getting somewere...!

I like irons on a rifle simply because I think a rifle SHOULD have them to be complete. Do I actually USE them,I can't really remember doing so. I really like the absolute statements that some people make that there is only ONE perfect fit for all people and that those are the only combination of measurements that anyone could possibly use with success. I can generally pick up and hit the target with any rifle I pick up and believe the majority of good shots can also do so. The only thing I am not able to do this with is if the scope is so low and the comb so high I can't see thru the scope. It's amazing to me how we have been able to win wars with everyone using absolutely identically stocked rifles. That really should tell us SOMETHING.

quote:

It's amazing to me how we have been able to win wars with everyone using absolutely identically stocked rifles. That really should tell us SOMETHING

When you are in the situation of using a gun that doesn't naturally fit and your life depends on it you learn to fit your style to the gun.

Yes I can adjust from one comb to another. Is it comfortable? No. In my case if I build a rifle with both scope and sights I set it up for the scope. Then if need to I force fit the hold for sights.

I tend to agree with Bent I think you can have a perfect fit for iron or scope but it is hard if not impossible to have both on the same rifle. Can we adjust sure.

Fit the rifle to the primary site, the other is backup.

You can either comprimise by having one sighting system be the primary and have the gun fit adjusted to where it's ideal, or you can comprise the sighting systems to where neither is ideal..........................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:

I tend to agree with Bent I think you can have a perfect fit for iron or scope but it is hard if not impossible to have both on the same rifle.

Well, and there is my point. Should we not try to make it happen? Lower scopes, higher irons? Maybe flip-up Irons? Construct lower qr mounts?
Telling the customers that a 1920 stock, low irons and a 56 mm belled scope does not work?
Should scope tubes be longer, so that the bell mounts in front of the thick part of the barrel?


As for the infantry rifles during the war - as the guys on the other side had the same badfitting stocks, it hardly made a difference.

Gosh...didn't know there was such a problem! Just raise your head..comes with practice, I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by zimbabwe:
... I can generally pick up and hit the target with any rifle I pick up and believe the majority of good shots can also do so. The only thing I am not able to do this with is if the scope is so low and the comb so high I can't see thru the scope....

Well if thats the case then you would not be able to use the irons either, cause Ive yet to see a rifle where line of sight for irons is higher than that of the QD scope.... and it would also tell me that no intelligent consideration took place went stocking and/or sighting-up the rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Gosh...didn't know there was such a problem! Just raise your head..comes with practice, I guess.

Well, Duane - yes, that is what has to be done...
And my point is, that, then the gun does not fit as it should...
Ever told trap-shooters that? "Yes, I know your stock is to low, but just raise your head, it will be fine!"?

You are the first person I know who has constructed claw mounts that sets the scope close to normal, compared to our European makers, who mount the scope up in the air, almost made for hip-shoting...

You make the most stunning guns I have ever seen, would it not be ineresting to make them fit and handle like a Purdey shotgun, both with glass and irons?

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Gosh...didn't know there was such a problem! Just raise your head..comes with practice, I guess.

It didn't take long before I realized not only was It faster but it was a lot more comfortable too.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Gosh...didn't know there was such a problem! Just raise your head..comes with practice, I guess.

It didn't take long before I realized not only was It faster but it was a lot more comfortable too.
Terry

Then why not have the Irons set up at the same centre line?..ie; one simplyfied ideal position for both forms of sighting systems?
- thats the point I feel Bent is trying to make.

Because there is no need to. Nothing too hard to understand about it I hope.

Does it not make more sense to have them at the same height? form follows function does it not?
..One comfortable consistent head position when & whereever no matter the situation...why have two head positions when you already know one particular head position can work best for both sighting systems?
Needed no, but sure makes more straight forward ergonomic sense to me.

If they're on the same plain they will interfere with each other. Besides, I'm not talking about anything hypothedical.

Terry

quote:

Well, and there is my point. Should we not try to make it happen? Lower scopes, higher irons? Maybe flip-up Irons? Construct lower qr mounts?
Telling the customers that a 1920 stock, low irons and a 56 mm belled scope does not work?
Should scope tubes be longer, so that the bell mounts in front of the thick part of the barrel?

I'll say no to trying to make it happen. Do dual sighted rifles really get shot a lot with both? I doubt it. Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

Bent,
How you going to lower QD Talleys? ive studied them, the clamp screw stops any further lowering of the ring design.
However you could possible modify or custom build lower claw mount rings, I reckon you could get the gap between the scope tube & base to around [.060"]... but would probably need a very particular scope, preferably a short straight objective tube that does not protrude much/if at all, forward of the front ring.
Folding sights would allow you to bring the two sight lines closer together, but still have lower mounted scope.

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
If they're on the same plain they will interfere with each other.

Terry

Eh...well. Below 4x rear sights can be seen as a shodow (clear below2x)if they are close to the scope, and that is why I suggest some kind of flip-up. Above 4x they will not be seen.
Front sight is not a problem.

But I guess people do not care about fitting and custom guns, so I'll head for some food.

Thanks,

how about pics to illustrate your positions?

Bent I don't thinks it's nobody cares. Perhaps you see more requests over there for a rifle that offers equal quality of use of both irons and a scope. Speaking only for myself if my scope happens to fail then I'll use the irons in a pinch. Sure I'll have to crawl down to see them but it's not a big deal seeing how they are a back up sight for me. If I were to need a rifle with irons only a scope would never be in the picture.

Bent, I care. I just disagree about it being a problem. I should've not even replied to what Trax wrote. I didn't want to be drug into an argument but I do have strong opinions about what works for me. I guess I couldn't help myself.

Please carry on.

Terry

Raising one's head to see the sights will guarantee several things, among them A) yes, you'll be able to see thru the scope that way and B) yes, you'll shoot noticably less accurately that way. If you don't believe me just ask any serious target shooter.

Of course, to some folks, accuracy (function) is much less important than appearance (form).

I think we said above that women often feel this way (and I'm often glad of it). Like the Madam said to the Bishop, "You pays your money and you takes your choice!"
Regards, Joe

I actually have a couple rifles where the Irons and optics "Co-Witness" perfectly:






Obviously they aren't fine custom rifles. The other trick is that they use non-magnified optics. I think Brent is making a valid, useful point. Co-Witnessing sites is CRUCIAL on tactical style rifles, it's importance just hasn't filtered over to hunting rifles.

In the end you are going to have to give up something, either appearance or functionality of one of the types of sites. On the last hunting rifle I built I made it to where I could shoulder it with my eyes closed and be looking through the center of the scope, I may or may not ever even put iron sites on it.

On the rifles that I have low-powered variables and iron-sites on I find the irons to be a bit of a distraction from the reticle and I think that they would be even more so if co-witnessed on a non-lighted scope. On anything other than a non-dangerous game gun I'm unwilling to have the weight and distraction of high irons that interfere with the site I'll be using 99.9% of the time. But I do think it's really something to think about when your life might be on the line!..................................DJ

I don't get it.

Rifles and sights are fixed and inflexible. So what?

People, including but not limited to cheeks and necks, are flexible.

So just get your rifle close enough for irons and scopes both, then fit yourself to your rifle.

Such an approach has always worked fine for me.

Funny thing, I took my 1st deer this year at 325yds with one of those old fashion form only custom rifles. They work pretty good in the real world.

Terry

Terry, I've killed plenty of deer (well, 7) with a 22 pistol, but I'd never say that it was a good idea for anyone else to set out with that intention. You use what's available and you adapt as necessary. I just happen to think that it's not always necessary to HAVE to adapt, that's all, especially when we're talking custom rifles.
Regards, Joe

I can use most any rifle I want. The ones I hunt are the ones I'm most comfortable with. I don't need to adapt anything. I know this is the Internet and all, but I think some of you guy's put way too much thought into this. It's really not that hard.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
I can use most any rifle I want. The ones I hunt are the ones I'm most comfortable with. I don't need to adapt anything. I know this is the Internet and all, but I think some of you guy's put way too much thought into this. It's really not that hard.

Terry

I'll second that. I believe every scoped rifle that I hunt with, has irons as well. I can't imagine ever experiencing a missed shot afield, due to the rifle not being optimized(fit wise) for one or the other. If you don't like iron sights on a hunting rifle for aesthetic reasons, I can understand that; but to say it will have a significant effect on marksmanship at realistic ranges, under hunting conditions, I'm not buying it. As TC1 said....."It's really not that hard."

Jeff

The solution is simple. Mount your scope as low as possible, mount the iron sights high.

Look at some European guns.