Iron Sights

[totallycustom]

Does anyone shoot iron sights on their bolt action rifles?

I was doing some thinking and wanted to  know if anyone still used iron sights, most newer rifles cant even be had with them.  I know that's all I use on my custom mauser, but I think I am the exception to the rule, am I?  I think it is kind of a shame that shooters dont use irons anymore, what do you think.

-TC-

[jrhen]

You bring up a good point that has been tossed around the group of guys I hunt with.  On last year's cow elk hunt they didn't start moving (or we didn't see them) until right before sun set.  By moving I mean; on the first night slow and careful, by the second night they were at fast walk.  Third night didn't see an animal.

On a moving target most of us would shoot better with open sights.  I have three leaf express sights (100, 200, 300 yards) on my CZ that I took off and mounted a scope.  I am re-thinking my logic...

[Slamfire]

I've got a pair of .260s. One is a scoped, rebored Savage, the other is a rechambered Arisaka carbine, with a peep sight. At 100 yards the Arisaka is consistently more accurate.  :roll:

[Brithunter]

Hmmm now if ......................... and I say IF your scope is set up right so that when you raise your rifle to your shoulder so that the sight aligns with your eye without you having to move your head to find it  :roll:  and you have a reasonable powered scope. No more than 6x mag lower is better and 4x is good one. Then shooting moving ............................. fairly slowly moving targets is no problem. Here in the UK the shooting of moving game is frowned upon unless it's wounded then it's seen as humane.

    No I didn't make that up either.

    In low light a scope should actually help by increasing the light reaching the eye providing of course the reticle is heavy enough to be seen in the gloom :wink: .

   Now back to the Iron sight issue, this is one which I have been looking at and want to get more use out of some classic hunting rifles which do have Iron sights. To get more used to and better at shooting with them I am currently practising with a BSA Sportsman Five .22 R/F rifle which has a P-H 16B sporting peep sight fitted combined with the standard BSA blade fore sight. Waiting in the wings I have a P-H 6E aperture sporting sight on a BSA Majestic Feather Weight in .270 and a BSA Model D with a P-H 6EH in .303. Once I get more used to shooting with these and my groups tighten up more then I will break out some express sighted rifles and give them a whirl. My goal is to be able to consitantly group to under 2" at 100 yards from various field shooting positions like sitting and standing using a single stick and then free hand standing at 75 meters. Once I can do that consitantly then I will judge that I am good to go in the field  :-) .

    Now I did speak to my friend the gamekeep who I was hunting Roe Buck with last weekend and we discussed my using the sporting aperture sight which out to 75 meters I can group inside my own set limits from a steady shooting position. However he pointed out that due to the crops being so high, the Rape Seed is chest high, that it would severly limit my chances of a seeing the Deer, here is an example of what I mean:-



This is a nice 4 point Roe Buck resting up, a smaller Buck was laying up about 10 feet from him and all you could see was an ear  :shock:  and this was from the vantage point of an elevated box stand. From the ground they were not visible at all and we did not spot them until climbing the ladder to the stand where the plan was to wait a while and see what came out. The weather was against us there being a high wind and this little corner was sheltered. Whilst climbing the ladder we saw 3 Roe Deer that were not visable for the ground due to the height of the grass.

   Once the Buck stood up to clean and browse then yes I could have used the iron sights and he was only about 75 yards away and actually came to about 35 yards away before entering the wood behind us. I did not shoot him except with the camera as I was looking to get a 6 point Buck. This is what the cover was like on most of the wooded areas. Some plantations and natural copses were heavier in cover  :shock:  in a few weeks the Braken will grow up and open out then you can stand 10 feet froma Fallow Der and not see them  :oops:  :-



Not so good for iron sights a scope helps here and using just irons limits your chances just as Cliff said it would, once the Deer come into clearings or onto the fields to browse then you have a good chance with the iron sights. I will continue to practice with them with the goal of hunting with them again.  :-)



 More photos of the two Bucks are in the Deer Hunting forum if anyone wishes to see them.

[ScoutMan]

Custom,

My "go to" rifle is a Ruger Compact that has been retrofitted with the XO ghost ring and post front sight. The aperture opening on the ghost ring is .190; the width of the post front is .100. The whole setup weighs in at an even 7 lbs.

In order to take advantage of the virtues of the ghost ring/post certain things need to be clarified. The first mistake is to get an aperture opening that is too small. A small aperture is no advantage to field accuracy. The second mistake is to get a front sight post that is too narrow. As we age we need a wider front sight for our aging eyes to focus. The third mistake is to substitute a bead for a post front. A bead is a poorer index of elevation out to distances where it matters.

In most field situations a scope is unnecessary.

The principal advantages of a telescope are:
1-Single focal plane-Target and sight are in the same focal plane.
2-Target resolution-the ability to distinguish the target from its background. If you can't see your target clearly a scope helps. However, most big game is quite large, so seeing is usually not a problem.
3-Light gathering- A scope gathers light better at early dawn and dark sunset. However, my experience has been that I can see my front sight quite well during legal shooting hours which in my area is 1/2 hr before sunrise and 1/2 hr after sunset.

The disadvantages of a telescope are:
1-Bulk-A scope is more bulky than iron sights, making the rifle more unhandy to use.
2-Weight- A telescope with rings and bases adds about 1 lb to the total weight of the whole system.

Handiness= Weight of 7 lbs or less; length of 39" or less. The more a rifle departs from these benchmarks, the more unhandy it will be to use under field conditions.

[Brithunter]

Well all I can say is that I have beeing doing it wrong all these years  :roll:  the BSA Majestic featherweight in .270 I used last weekend is obviously not handy as it measures 42 1/2" long with is long action and 222 barrel. The rifle has a quite nice walnut stock but depsite this it weighs 6 1/4lbs with the scope and rings. On the Majestic the reciever is dovetailed so only rings are required, all this and made in 1959  :wink: The problem with light rifles is that when shot from the bench they can be unpleasent depending upon the chembering and the bullet weight being shot.

I use P-H alloy rings to hold the Lisenfeld 3-9x42 scope which also has an alloy body. Not a heavyweight but any means  :-)  Now as for the peep sight well it has a screw in eye Aperture different sizes once being available. Mine has a 0.090" hole in and the foresight is a bead 1/16" in diameter. On removing the aperture the hole in the windage arm is 0.198" in size.

   Now as for quarry size well the Muntjac Buck I shot last weekend stood about 18" high at the shoulder, the shot was taken at about 125 yards an fore sight "post" of 0.100" would have virtually obscured the beast  :shock: which would be no good at all, Oh Yes Muntjac are really that small  :wink:  Now on a classic Rigby Best sporting rifle I have the front sight is also a bead but this one is much finer and is coupled with a fine set of No3 Vee Express sights. The No3 Vee is the wide fairly shallow angled vee which allows you to see more of your target animal and helps with moving shots.

   Now as for the use a bead if you read "The Sporting REifle" by Col Towsend Wheelan he states that the choice of a bead or flat topped post is just personal preference however it should be Gold, Ivory or Red for hunting and Blcak used only for taget shooting.

[ScoutMan]

Well all I can say is that I have beeing doing it wrong all these years  :roll:  the BSA Majestic featherweight in .270 I used last weekend is obviously not handy as it measures 42 1/2" long with is long action and 222 barrel.

Handiness might not be an attribute, depending on hunting style. If you drive close to your hunting area and hunt from a tree stand, then handiness might not be that important. On the other hand, if your hunting style requires you to trek from dawn to dust, where you jump small stream, have to duck under low lying branches,etc.  you will really appreciate a handy rifle. That is not to say that you can't get it done with a 42" rifle, but you'll work harder at it than if you had a shorter piece.


   Now as for quarry size well the Muntjac Buck I shot last weekend stood about 18" high at the shoulder, the shot was taken at about 125 yards an fore sight "post" of 0.100" would have virtually obscured the beast  :

That is true. However by proper technique it is very doable. You need to come into your vital zone from a 6 o'clock approach. If you have zeroed your rifle to have the bullet strike off the top of the post, then the majority of the vital zone of your target will still be visible. High power rifle shooters have learned this. The front sight on the military Garand will completly blot out the 20" black of the 600 yd target. High scores have been obtained by using a 6 o'clock hold at that distance. It is also the hold that is used at the 1,000 yd target.

   Now as for the use a bead if you read "The Sporting REifle" by Col Towsend Wheelan he states that the choice of a bead or flat topped post is just personal preference however it should be Gold, Ivory or Red for hunting and Blcak used only for taget shooting.

With all due respect to the Colonel, a bead, because of its rounded top gives an imprecise index of elevation. That is why you do not see bead foresights on military rifles. Only a post gives a precise index of elevation because of the flat contour of the top  of the post.

SM

[beemanbeme]

Since I don't know most people, I can't say if they shoot better with open sights or not.  Few of the folks I hunt with use open sights.  Except a few pilgrims that use 30-30's with those godawful buckhorn sights. And they, to a man, are lousy shots.
I find a proper sized scope, properly mounted is a definite asset to hunting.  For years my primary elk rifle wore a 1.5x5x scope.  I have used the ghost ring set-up and, with practice, it can be very accurate, and quick.  But no quicker nor more accurate than a scope of correct power.

[corbanzo]

It seems as if you only find the open sights on levers and big bore rifles anymore.  It does make some sense that with heavier (or lighter, with some of the level rounds) which don't reach out like some of the .30 cal bolts do would have sights, and the others which could reach about farther don't.  I like the fact that the levers and big cals have the sights, but truly it's all about supply and demand... there aren't many hunters now a days who are going to get a big game rifle without a scope... if there is a market for a certain caliber in a certain rifle with a scope, then I'm sure someone is willing to make a buck catering to them.

[Rummer]

I am speaking only for myself here:

I don't find iron sights to be very useful.  My use of them has been limited to the M16 and M9 when I was in the national guard and hunting with a flintlock back when I lived in PA

In using the flinter I found that it was much harder for me to pick aim at a precise spot on a deer with the irons than it was with a scope.  I just didn't feel comfortable shooting beyond 50 to 75 yards with that set up.

With military rifles it is (was) different.  We were taught to aim at center mass (which really means center of visible mass as you aim at the center of what you can see).

A hunting rifle is a little different.  You are trying to hit a specific part of an animal, ot just the center of what you can see.  I find that I have an easier time picking this spot to aim at with a scope.

Rummer

[qajaq59]

My "hunting" rifles have either scopes or peep sights on them because I want exact  hits every time, but a good 70% of my target shooting is 200 yards with iron sights because it is so much harder to do. I shoot every week and I shoot a lot of ammo. If I did it all with the scoped rifle I'd get bored. But with the iron sights I have to really knuckle down to end up with a decent group, so it's just more fun.
However, I don't think it's for everyone or I'd see a lot more guys doing it. My attitude is, if you're having a good time at the range, then whatever sight you have on the rifle is the correct one.

[Larry Gibson]

Does anyone shoot iron sights on their bolt action rifles?

TC-

I have hunted for years with both iron sights and scope sights. With iron I started with the usual bead/leaf rear sight found on my .22s and M94. I had just got into smallbore competitive and was learning the benifit of the rear aperture and post front sight when I went into the Army. Having used the aperture rear/post front with success in the Army I continued using it for hunting.  I never felt disadvantaged with a good aperture/post set up vs a scope for normal hunting ranges even in the dense dark forests of the NW. I also used scopes and which sight I used was most often determined simply by what i felt like using and the rifle I chose to use.

However, ALL of my big game rifles with scope sights have back up iron sights. I learned a hard lesson years ago, with a couple follow up refreshers, that scopes will fail - even the best of them. They most often fail in the field. I also carry the means to remove the scope and go to the iron with me while hunting. Having that back up has saved several hunting trips for me since the first hard lesson years ago.

I also like to do a lot of plinking and cast bullet shooting with milsurp rifles and there original sights. Of course if you are into cowboy shooting with lever rifles or hunting with black powder cartridge rifles the iron sights are used.

Larry Gibson

[glshop20]

At a reasonable distance open sights should work just fine.  You probably should do more practice shooting if you intend to hunt with open sights.  I think that once a scope is setup properly it is easier for the casual shooter to more likely be on target with less practice.  You got to know your limitations and stay within them with either setup.  800yd. shots are great when you have as many re-takes as you like.

[gnoahhh]

My current "go-to" rifle is a Mauser Guild gun with a dual sighting arrangement. A 3x scope is held by a G&H QD Sidemount. In addition I have a Lyman reciever sight + gold bead front. While still hunting the scope rides in a leather case slung over a shoulder or clipped to my pack. The rifle is so sweetly balanced without the scope on it. When sitting for an extended period I slip the scope onto the reciever. Also, as an aside, the sling stays stowed in my pack until it's needed to free up my hands while dragging a deer. Carrying your rifle in your hands saves valuable seconds when faced with a snap-shot, and not having the added presence of a scope to hinder the natural grasping of the gun at its balance-point helps in that.