Iron Sights. Yes or no?

[Jeff505]

Iron sights are a trusted part of a gun when precision optics fail. As one ages such sights are harder to use accurately. Ghost rings, peep or other apertures make fast target acquisition possible even with aging eyes. In this regard I can speak with experience. I shot lever action rifles for years on deer, bear, hogs and other game. I‘ve always had scoped bolt actions as well, adding Skinner sights to certain rifles has allowed me to once again use these shooting irons. Buck horn sights no longer are a going proposition to effectively shoot with any degree of accuracy.

 

[Tra3]

+1 for installing iron sights. I’ve had 2 scope malfunctions, neither we’re on rifles with iron sights. The first instance, I was able to borrow a rifle. For the second scope malfunction I had brought a backup rifle. Irons give you the opportunity to keep hunting if something catastrophic occurs to your scope.

Also, if you hunt in thick woods, or have to pursue a wounded animal into thick woods, it is nice to have a detachable scope and irons. I had to pursue a wounded cow elk into a very brush-choked ravine in Idaho during midday sun. It would have been easier with irons with the mix of sunlight and shade. It ended with a head shot at 20 yards.
Finally. If you do have a detachable scope and you grab the wrong scope for a day hunt, you can still hunt with the irons. (For this type of error you will get teased a lot by your buddy, your father, and anyone else they can possibly tell.)

 

[SaintPanzer]

The only reason I wouldn't put sights on a rifle is to make room for a suppressor.

I don't own a suppressor.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

You’ll be proud of me Kevin…when I get my new Westley Richards I am going to try to use the iron sights not a red dot…I will have to let you know how it goes. Elephant and Buffalo

Go for it RB, get in really close so you can smell them - sight is only one of the senses!

 

[mark-hunter]

What do you think?

Iron sights are like parachute.
Probably you will not need them, but if you do, you will need them badly.
All my hunting rifles have irons sights, and detachable scope mounts. And all my iron sights are zeroed at 50 meters.

If scope gets damaged, during the hunt, iron sight is the only back up.

 

[Frederik]

If it fits in your budget do it it just makes the rifle a classic.

 

[Warren Knudsen]

irons all day, a dependible back up if ever needed

 

[Sthoko]

The only rifle i own with a scope ( Zeiss 4x32) is my Mauser 66 7x64. The other two, Winchester 70 375H&H and Mauser 98 30-06 with iron sights. As long as my eyes work, i will use them.

 

[Zambezi]

A rifle without iron sights is like a gelded buffalo... it just doesn't look right or function as required.

 

[Philip Glass]

I'm going to have some work done on one of my 9.3x62 rifles. It will used exclusively as a plains game, elk, deer gun. No DG. No big bears. IOW, no close quarters work with stuff that bites or stomps. I have a 375H&H and a 404J for that kind of hunting. I'm leaning towards not having express/iron sights installed. I want to keep the rifle as clean and light as possible. What do you think?

FTR, I already have a CZ550FS 9.3x62 with iron sights.

If you can shoot irons well st the distances you intend to shoot then go for it.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

I think Prince Philip said “a shotgun without hammers is like a dog without ears”. I have plenty of hammerless shotguns, but feel this way about a blued steel, wood stocked mid bore without iron sights. I’d put a barrel band front sling mount on as well!

If it was a 6.5 creedmoor, then maybe a bare barrel would be just fine. A 9.3x62 is pretty cool and deserves a little hardware.

It was his father-in-law, King George who said ”A shotgun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears”. Prince Philip preferred a pair of hammerless Purdey 12 gauge (2 3/4”) sidelock ejector shotguns which King George had gifted him.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

Another vote for @Red Leg ‘s advice. Iron sights are crucial. Telescopic sights will do you no good in thick cover, where quick instinctive shots have to be taken. For that kind of shooting, open iron sights with a wide “V” backsight and uncovered ivory bead foresight are ideal. In thick cover, shots present themselves at very short ranges but offer very little time to use the scope. Here, the iron sight remains king.

Iron sights won’t weigh so much as to make a perceptible difference on the feel of your rifle. Use telescopic sights with detachable scope mounts. That way, you can easily remove them when following up wounded game in the thick stuff.

 

[Sika98k]

Crack on with it. After a certain age iron sights are only accessories. You do save a minuscule amount of weight, negligible really though.

 

[Tom Leoni]

To me, it may also depend by the overall look of your project - if you plan to have a nice "wood & blue" rifle, well, go with the irons. If you're building a syntetic or laminated/utillity tool, I would go with a plain, no frills tube.

I couldn't agree more. A nice set of sights on wood-blue are a must. A sightless wood-blue Mauser might as well have a huge Monte Carlo stock, white spacers, a ventilated rib and a squared-off forend tip.

 

[Bonk]

Thanks for the input gentlemen but I'm going against the grain and won't install iron sights on this rifle. I have more than a few hunting rifles and all but three have iron sights of some sort. I like iron sights and, frankly, I'm pretty good with them.

My decision is about creating a purpose built rifle. I have plenty of all around general use rifles but I want a dedicated big plains game/elk rifle. Something with enough power to hunt large thin skinned game at distances up to about 300 yards. I plan to top it with a 4X or 6X fixed power scope. I should be able to get a MPBR between 225 and 250 yards depending on the load. It'll be Ceracoted matte black to help with weather/sweat resistance while retaining most of the classic wood/blue look.

The consensus is there are three reasons to mount iron sights. Aesthetics, resale value and what ifs. I'll take them one at a time.

I like a rifle with only iron sights. It has a classic honest look and I'm a big fan. However, when you top that same rifle with a scope the iron sights look like an afterthought and distract from the look IMO. It's like hanging a spare tire on the back of a vehicle. I understand why it's there but it does nothing for the overall look. A bare barrel rifle without a scope does look incomplete but adding either a scope or iron sights fixes that. IMO adding both clutters it even though there may be a very good reason why the iron sights are there. Form does follow function but only if the function is a reality. BUIS make sense on some rifles. On others they're mostly decoration. YMMV.

I don't care about resale value even though I freely admit I could at some point decide to sell/trade the rifle. Firearms in general are lousy investments. I've never acquired a gun because I thought I might make money on it. I acquire them because they interest me in some way. I'm a gun enthusiast. I'm not a collector or investor. Besides, I'm a firm believer in the concept that anything done well will maintain value. If I like it but decide to sell it someone else will appreciate it for the same reasons I did. There may not be as many as would prefer it with iron sights but there are other knuckleheads like me out there.

What if scenarios. I've never had a scope fail in the field. I'm not saying it can't happen but it's pretty unlikely. If it does, oh well. That's hunting. It doesn't always go your way. I'm good with that. If I'm hunting halfway around the world I'll bring a second scope.

I understand the "let's go track the wounded buffalo" argument but if I decide to hunt big cats or DG I'm taking a different rifle and that rifle will have express sights. If I'm in camp and that scenario comes up and I'm asked to go along I'll go if they have a more appropriate rifle I can borrow. I'm not going to build a dedicated purpose rifle and add something to it for a task I'll never use that rifle for.

Again, a sincere thanks for the input. All of it. I'm not the kind of a guy that asks for opinions and then gets butthurt when people tell me what they think. While I was composing the thread I was undecided. I was 60/40 in favor of no sights and genuinely wanted to hear what you thought about it. As soon as I hit "enter" I knew which way I was going to go. Remember that old adage about flipping a coin when you're undecided? As soon as the coin is in the air you know which way you want it to land. That's what happened here. Even though I quickly knew what I was going to do I thought hearing you guys out would be interesting and it might help somebody else on the fence about the same question.

Thanks gentlemen.

 

[Lkhntr]

It has been been around 15 and 20 years ago, maybe longer, that I had to let 2 Bull elk within 50 yards get away because my scopes fogged over from the inside. I believe the first was a red field wide field, the second was the replacement by redfield with a different name since they had gone out of business. I now buy higher end scopes. With that said, I have rifles with and without sights. I do prefer a rifle with sights.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

I too have had scopes fog up to where they are useless. That is a good reason for me to have sights on any rifle. I will add that a low quality scope is not to blame. It was a zeiss.

 

[MS 9x56]

Another vote for @Red Leg ‘s advice. Iron sights are crucial. Telescopic sights will do you no good in thick cover, where quick instinctive shots have to be taken. For that kind of shooting, open iron sights with a wide “V” backsight and uncovered ivory bead foresight are ideal. In thick cover, shots present themselves at very short ranges but offer very little time to use the scope. Here, the iron sight remains king.

Iron sights won’t weigh so much as to make a perceptible difference on the feel of your rifle. Use telescopic sights with detachable scope mounts. That way, you can easily remove them when following up wounded game in the thick stuff.

You mean like this:

 

[igotit]

Iron sights are dead to me. My eyes have gotten old in the last few years. If it wasn't for optics, I wouldn't be able to shoot nearly as well as I did 20, even 10 years ago

 

[Hunter-Habib]

You mean like this:View attachment 489772

Couldn’t have said it better, myself.