what's the rationale for rifles with no iron sights?

S

SkinnyJoe

BANNED
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
7,236
I know that most rifles (hunting ones at least) are used with scopes now, but it simply puzzles me to see a quality bolt-action rifle with no iron sights in a catalog.

Do they make the rifle that much heavier? Would you be better off without them if your scope was damaged in a remote area on an expensive hunt?
In combat?

I don't get it.

Thanks.
 
Hi,

Well, a couple of reasons. The rifle tends to look sleeker and cleaner without the irons. Many scope mounts are low profile and non-removable without tools, so they render irons unusable anyway. And finally, few shooters these days can actually use them to any effect any way.

Personally, I like irons for backup. But my old eyes are getting to the point were I don't see them real well anymore. It sucks to get old!

dalee
 
I never used optics of any kind on my weapon in combat. We just didn't have them, they were for the scouts back then. Same with weapon mount Surefires. Now it seems like everyone has them. I did fine with iron sights and to this day they are all I know. Never had to make a shot beyond 300m.
 
My recent re-introduction to the rifle has me making the same observation dalee100 makes; I can hardly see the "irons". Our patrol rifles have the two-aperture peep, and even with the big one I was seeing TWO front sights, one above the other.

Switching over to the red-dot optical sight was a great relief.
 
mwerner said:
My recent re-introduction to the rifle has me making the same observation dalee100 makes; I can hardly see the "irons". Our patrol rifles have the two-aperture peep, and even with the big one I was seeing TWO front sights, one above the other.

Switching over to the red-dot optical sight was a great relief.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Yep, know that feeling well! Last time I took out my Yugo M24/47 Mauser, I could have sworn there used to be iron sights on it! I'm going to have to invest in scout mounts and pistol scopes for almost all of my treasured mil-surps. Momma ain't going to be happy!

dalee
 
Hunting rifles chambered in a flat shooting cartridges like the 270, 30-06, 300 win mag, etc... are typically setup to give the shooter the best chance of acquiring a long range target. A riflescope is the best sighting system for these types of rigs. Irons are great and I use them on some of my brush guns, but they just get in the way on scoped rifles.
 
I tend to like lower power variable scopes (like a 1.5-6 x 42mm) for hunting at regular ranges. When such a scope is set at 1.5 to 2.5 power for hunting in cover, I can see the barrel of the rifle in my scope. Iron sights (especially a big, tall, hooded front sight) can be a bit distracting under that circumstance. However, I love shooting iron sights on lever action rifles and service rifles (M1A Springfield, Garand, vintage O3A3, etc.).

DancesWithKnives
 
solidsoldier said:
I never used optics of any kind on my weapon in combat. We just didn't have them, they were for the scouts back then. Same with weapon mount Surefires. Now it seems like everyone has them. I did fine with iron sights and to this day they are all I know. Never had to make a shot beyond 300m.
Click to expand...

most rifles which dont come with irons are sporting rifles not combat rifles and dont have irons as probably 90% of the folks who buy, say a remington 700 7MM rem mag, are gonna put a scope on the thing and probably remove the irons anyway, also sometimes irons will interfere with mounting a scope.

lotsa military rifles have optics now to make use of nite vision capabilities which ya cant do with irons.

dont get me wrong i like irons and ya can get good hits at a lot farther ranges than most think possible, but optics are the way of the future in combat due to the NVG stuff & is the reason for all the aimpoints/eotchs, IR illuminators and lasers/lites currently in use, 10 or 15 yrs ago we didnt have the NVG capabilities and no one used optics then, times change.
 
Iron sights can interfere with positioning and view thru scope - especially the newer 50mm+ models. See thru scope mounts were one solution but make a hunting rifle unbalanced and eye/cheek position too high for most stocks. Given the reliability, styles, options and versatility of scopes today, backup iron sights aren't as critical as they once were. If you prefer them that's fine - but I've head shot varmints with scope sights at distances and low light situations that they were barely visible with naked eye
 
I wanted a bolt action with factory iron sights.
There was very, very few of them available.
Found this Savage model 10, .223 in youth model which suited me cause I'm not that big. With sights and they was nearly dead on out the box. :D Happy as can be with it, a very nice shooting little rifle for the money.
2dch5cj.jpg
[/IMG]
 
imho the youth model rifles are pretty cool, very handy rifles, a bud uses one in .243 for deer and is very happy with it, his has a 3X9 scope though.
 
It is cheaper to leave them off and most do not use them. I like them myself, especially express style.
 
It's the '50's varmint thing brought into deer hunting - all bolt actions seem to get scopes now. I noticed this in the seventies - iron sight models started becoming scarce in sales racks. Kinda forces the scope purchase, and the retailer/gun store is all about making money, right?

Older style guns still have iron sights - levers, pumps, black powder,etc. Most military weapons will always offer irons because of redundancy. If a red dot gets damaged, you still have something.

I started using red dots in the seventies, but now all I carry is iron sights. My vision isn't getting better, the boys keep grabbing the scoped guns when we go hunt . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top