Jump shooting deer used to be my favorite way to hunt deer, most often in miserable rainy or snowy weather when there were less people on the woods. I am a lot faster with a properly mounted scope than with irons. A relatively inexpensive set of Butler Creek flip up covers will make rainy days much easier. My R15 is a flat top with no front post, strictly optic. It has a 1.4 x 4.5 scope on it. My wife (14 yr in army) didn't like it, until she actually shouldered it, now would not trade it for irons. I have banged more iron sights on stuff than scopes, partly because I probably subconsciously try to protect the scope without realizing it, after many years of scope use its just second nature.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Iron Sights vs Scope
- Thread starter Photon Guy
- Start date
Photon Guy said:Do they make 7.62 caliber rifles on the AK platform that are designed for scopes? That might be the next rifle on my list of rifles to get.
I'm sure that there are others but check out Vepr. It's an AK platform that was built to be a hunting rifle. They are available with side or top scope mounts depending on the model; they are also available in various lengths and calibers.
Photon Guy
New member
So it sounds like scopes are all around superior to iron sights. I've even seen scopes for handguns although generally handguns use iron sights and scopes are primarily for rifles.
That is totally dependent on the gun you are shooting, what you are intending to shoot at and at what range.
This is my Vepr 7.62x39 at 50, 75 and 100 yards respectively. I'm a newb but I was happy the results; 9" at 100 yards is tiny through iron sights.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=578246
Handguns are made for immediate, unexpected threats; I've never been in that situation but I don't think that you'd have time to look through a scope. Rifles are more for intended shooting; you know what you are looking for and at what range. That's the defining factor.
This is my Vepr 7.62x39 at 50, 75 and 100 yards respectively. I'm a newb but I was happy the results; 9" at 100 yards is tiny through iron sights.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=578246
Handguns are made for immediate, unexpected threats; I've never been in that situation but I don't think that you'd have time to look through a scope. Rifles are more for intended shooting; you know what you are looking for and at what range. That's the defining factor.
Over the years I've seen at least as many broken/bent front sight posts or missing,bent,broken rear sights as I have seen decent(by decent, I mean name brand mid-grade or better) quality scopes fail.
True statement. Especially hard recoiling rifles of a bye gone era, or rifles that got "used" heavily. They get dropped, dinged, leaned on things, dropped out of the pickup.......... I've seen piles of bent front sight blades and wiggling rear sights on family heirlooms that took more game before I was born than I ever will in my life.
That said, I like irons on my 45/70 that I deer hunt with, but prefer there to be scope on my .308 and .223. It matters what job you're asking the gun/round to do as much as personal preference. I have had exactly one scope fail, and that probably had some to do with the abuse I subjected it to through it's life.
Learning to shoot with iron sights is like learning to drive a stick. It's an essential skill set that every self-respecting shooter (driver) should have. That being said, scopes have distinct advantages as mentioned above. All of my hunting rifles have scopes. My mil-surps do not. Some of my ARs and .22s have scopes, others don't.
Automatics have become so reliable, efficient and refined that they are actually better in most respects than manuals and the same is true for scopes. I can think of two specific situations where I have had problems with scopes though.
#1. Shooting into the sun. My preferred deer stand has me facing into the rising sun and scopes "flare" when looking into the sun. Iron sights don't. Of course, I know this now and I've added a long shade to one of my scopes just for morning hunting on this stand.
#2. Shooting from multiple positions. I sight in my rifles on a bench and adjust the eye relief accordingly. On a deer stand, that's usually no problem as most of my angles are similar to the bench. I recently shot an Appleseed event and found that my eye was much too close to the scope in the prone and especially the sitting position. I've also gotten "scope eye" from a magnum muzzleloader when a deer showed up very close behind me and I had to contort into a weird position to make the shot.
Automatics have become so reliable, efficient and refined that they are actually better in most respects than manuals and the same is true for scopes. I can think of two specific situations where I have had problems with scopes though.
#1. Shooting into the sun. My preferred deer stand has me facing into the rising sun and scopes "flare" when looking into the sun. Iron sights don't. Of course, I know this now and I've added a long shade to one of my scopes just for morning hunting on this stand.
#2. Shooting from multiple positions. I sight in my rifles on a bench and adjust the eye relief accordingly. On a deer stand, that's usually no problem as most of my angles are similar to the bench. I recently shot an Appleseed event and found that my eye was much too close to the scope in the prone and especially the sitting position. I've also gotten "scope eye" from a magnum muzzleloader when a deer showed up very close behind me and I had to contort into a weird position to make the shot.
Here in Oregon the terrain is very different on the west side vs. the east side of the state. Growing up on the east side, we almost always used a scope because there's a lot of open country and therefore longer shot opportunities. After hunting here on the west side for a season or two, I became convinced that a scope really holds very little advantage for me. I learned on open sights and am very confident with them - and over here it's rare to even see past 75 yards anyway due to thick trees, brush and rainy weather so the quick snap shot is often all you might get. Last two years I've carried an open sighted Win94, still haven't harvested a deer on this side but so far that has nothing to do with my sight choice.
bamaranger
New member
scopes
The old saw about irons being faster than scopes likely goes back 50 years or more. Fields of view were smaller, the rifle scope was still a bit of a novelty, and almost everyone had learned to use irons first, then moved to a scope, and the correct technique to run glass quickly was not as well known .
Scopes were not as reliable either, and the goofy Ironsighter rings and swing away mounts were popular for a reason, your scope might well just go sour at the wrong time.
Scopes, even good ones, can still go bad, and quality detachable mounts, and a functional set of irons are still a good idea on a hard use rifle. But a modern GOOD scope is a pretty durable item. And yes indeed, there are fragile irons, the factory sights on most US sporters and slug barrels are not as tough as you might think. Replacing lost and bent bead and blades is a common task for those who tinker with repairs.
There are some variables w/ quick use of a scope. One is magnification level. The more "X" power you have, the harder the target is to find in the smaller field of view that goes along with high power.
Another is tube diameter, and certainly bell diameter. No proof of this, but I suspect that the slightly bigger view in a 30mm tube aids to a SMALL degree in quick use. Their are more technical reasons for a big tube, but improved FOV is one. Consider the demise of the narrow 7/8 and 3/4 inch tube and the near universal adoption of the 1" tube for general use. And 30mm was next, and they are getting bigger. The big tubes and eye boxes make for a larger window/field f view, but.........
Big bells bring their own problems however. The big bells and high X power of the current fad, mean scopes mounted higher on the receiver, which equals a poor cheek weld, sloppy rifle mount and reduced field of view. Big scopes are heavier too. Your Grandad's or great uncles 1 inch fixed 4x mounted low on the rifle, was likely much faster than the current big glass so popular with some.
Another aspect is reticle choice. Many of today's are to fine, difficult to see and complicated. I believe the duplex is about as busy a sight picture as one needs for quick shooting, and strikes a good blend of visiblity and precision. The old post and crosshair (coarse) or the German #1 are likely best suited fast shooting and low light, but these patterns are not common today, special order at best, and fading fast. They are not best for long range work either, which is the current fascination.
I hate to bring it into the discusssion, but since we're talking speed, the red dot is likely the fastest set up, it certainly is for me. The dot seems to be quickly taking over the role of the basic iron sight. Shades of Star Wars.
Finally, some folks tend to peer through the scope with one eye, which only uses half our optical system, and is slower. The natural tendency is to let the master eye take over and close the off eye, and look through the scope. But I encourage anybody looking for speed to work a bit with both eyes open and see if they improve. For many folks, it helps.
There are folks who can do very good work with irons/peeps. And there are some iron set ups that are extremely durable and proven. But I believe that a wisely chosen scope, properly mounted and practiced with, will be superior in all aspects of shooting for most of us.
The old saw about irons being faster than scopes likely goes back 50 years or more. Fields of view were smaller, the rifle scope was still a bit of a novelty, and almost everyone had learned to use irons first, then moved to a scope, and the correct technique to run glass quickly was not as well known .
Scopes were not as reliable either, and the goofy Ironsighter rings and swing away mounts were popular for a reason, your scope might well just go sour at the wrong time.
Scopes, even good ones, can still go bad, and quality detachable mounts, and a functional set of irons are still a good idea on a hard use rifle. But a modern GOOD scope is a pretty durable item. And yes indeed, there are fragile irons, the factory sights on most US sporters and slug barrels are not as tough as you might think. Replacing lost and bent bead and blades is a common task for those who tinker with repairs.
There are some variables w/ quick use of a scope. One is magnification level. The more "X" power you have, the harder the target is to find in the smaller field of view that goes along with high power.
Another is tube diameter, and certainly bell diameter. No proof of this, but I suspect that the slightly bigger view in a 30mm tube aids to a SMALL degree in quick use. Their are more technical reasons for a big tube, but improved FOV is one. Consider the demise of the narrow 7/8 and 3/4 inch tube and the near universal adoption of the 1" tube for general use. And 30mm was next, and they are getting bigger. The big tubes and eye boxes make for a larger window/field f view, but.........
Big bells bring their own problems however. The big bells and high X power of the current fad, mean scopes mounted higher on the receiver, which equals a poor cheek weld, sloppy rifle mount and reduced field of view. Big scopes are heavier too. Your Grandad's or great uncles 1 inch fixed 4x mounted low on the rifle, was likely much faster than the current big glass so popular with some.
Another aspect is reticle choice. Many of today's are to fine, difficult to see and complicated. I believe the duplex is about as busy a sight picture as one needs for quick shooting, and strikes a good blend of visiblity and precision. The old post and crosshair (coarse) or the German #1 are likely best suited fast shooting and low light, but these patterns are not common today, special order at best, and fading fast. They are not best for long range work either, which is the current fascination.
I hate to bring it into the discusssion, but since we're talking speed, the red dot is likely the fastest set up, it certainly is for me. The dot seems to be quickly taking over the role of the basic iron sight. Shades of Star Wars.
Finally, some folks tend to peer through the scope with one eye, which only uses half our optical system, and is slower. The natural tendency is to let the master eye take over and close the off eye, and look through the scope. But I encourage anybody looking for speed to work a bit with both eyes open and see if they improve. For many folks, it helps.
There are folks who can do very good work with irons/peeps. And there are some iron set ups that are extremely durable and proven. But I believe that a wisely chosen scope, properly mounted and practiced with, will be superior in all aspects of shooting for most of us.
scopes
In Conventional prone match shooting - 40 shots at 100 yards - the scores for metallic sights and "any sight" are both clean - the difference is one X (400-39 to 400-40) in favor of the scope. The X-ring is one inch diameter.
For bench rest target shooting, though, scopes rule.
Perhaps for hunting, For shooting at those big bullseyes that were referred to a bit ago, it doesn't seem to matter much.So it sounds like scopes are all around superior to iron sights.
In Conventional prone match shooting - 40 shots at 100 yards - the scores for metallic sights and "any sight" are both clean - the difference is one X (400-39 to 400-40) in favor of the scope. The X-ring is one inch diameter.
For bench rest target shooting, though, scopes rule.
Photon Guy
New member
Im a really good driver with cars that have automatic transmissions and I've driven hundreds of thousands of miles but I never learned to drive a stick. I've wanted to learn but as of now I don't really see the point. After all, you could say every self respecting driver should learn to drive a stage coach as well as a car but the fact of the matter is stage coaches are obsolete and nobody is going to bother to learn to drive them.Learning to shoot with iron sights is like learning to drive a stick. It's an essential skill set that every self-respecting shooter (driver) should have.
As for learning to use iron sights it is important since most guns still do use iron sights and especially if you're going to shoot handguns you should learn to shoot with iron sights. I wouldn't want to be limited to just being able to shoot with a scope.
you could say every self respecting driver should learn to drive a stage coach
I don't think I've ever seen a stagecoach that wasn't part of a museum and I certainly haven't seen one on any street. Stick-shift cars are still plentiful, especially in the low-end, used and classic market. I just drove my '85 Jeep CJ-7 to town and back a few minutes ago, 4-speed and all. Plus, driving a stick is just fun.
I take your point though that it's not the same as shooting iron sights. You are correct that most rifles and virtually all pistols come with irons, effectively making it at must-have skill.
Sure Shot Mc Gee
New member
Barrel sights will save a days hunt maybe more days if its your only scoped gun along for the hunt. Seen it happen. Bad dropped scope no factory iron sights a shooter had to seek a replacement scope asap maybe easy to find. Maybe not so easy depending on where the hunt is.
When deer hunting I always take 3 rifles along on my trips. 232 mile one way to my yearly deer hunting spot. (house to cabin) Don't want to have too double back home for a part/ or needing a replacement scope. Thus a
Vari-x 3 scoped 270 my first choice. 2nd rifle is a identical model and scope to the 1st but chamber in 25-06. My Irish Luck The one I tote thru the bush when walking here to there in those woods. A 50s made 300 Savage 99 carbine wo/a scope but having factory original iron sights drifted a tad so's to shoot spot on a bullseye at 100 yrd distance. Unlike my scoped rifles the 300 Savage is ~fast ~accurate~ when I'm rushed to shoot. And always having a reliable sight picture in all weather conditions.
When deer hunting I always take 3 rifles along on my trips. 232 mile one way to my yearly deer hunting spot. (house to cabin) Don't want to have too double back home for a part/ or needing a replacement scope. Thus a
Vari-x 3 scoped 270 my first choice. 2nd rifle is a identical model and scope to the 1st but chamber in 25-06. My Irish Luck The one I tote thru the bush when walking here to there in those woods. A 50s made 300 Savage 99 carbine wo/a scope but having factory original iron sights drifted a tad so's to shoot spot on a bullseye at 100 yrd distance. Unlike my scoped rifles the 300 Savage is ~fast ~accurate~ when I'm rushed to shoot. And always having a reliable sight picture in all weather conditions.
I have been shooting irons all my life. Scope too. My first rifles were 22 with Irons, then I put a scope on a 22. I learned to shoot both from a young age.
I have shot Pistol competiton for many years. The last time I competed in a 25/50 yard bullseye match I was the only one on the line with Irons and that was a few years ago.
About a year agon I saw a Remington 513-T with Peep and globe for a decent price, so I bought it. Been shooting it a lot, even a 200 yard benchrest competiton with Irons. I did OK, the Pros kicked my butt. I did not come in last.
I shoot sporter rifle, so I tried it one evening for a match. Team captain said it does not make weight (7.5 lbs) so I went back to my Scoped 541-T.
Then I read the rules.... No weight limit for Irons, No minimum on trigger pull, just has to be safe.
Next I bought an Anschutz 1416 HB with the good trigger. I bought Anschutz adjustable rear sight and a 22 mm front sight with different size Iris.
I shot it in a 100 yard offhand match. I shot a 451, my score is usually 260 give or take.
When I shoot the RFC Offhand Rifle match at 25 or 50 yards, sometimes my IRONS scores are higher.
This season I plan to shoot sporter rifle with the irons. There is one other fellow that says he might too.
My 222 over 20 gauge has a peep sight, My 10-22 has a peep sight like M1. Both work great or their intended purpose.
For stock Irons on a rifle, I can't hit much because the rear sight is so far forward. Takes time to line up and See clearly. Put a Peep on and life is good.
I am 55 been wearing glasses all my life (Blessed with poor vision) now I have porgressive lenses. I just find the spot that makes the front sight clear.
David
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
I have shot Pistol competiton for many years. The last time I competed in a 25/50 yard bullseye match I was the only one on the line with Irons and that was a few years ago.
About a year agon I saw a Remington 513-T with Peep and globe for a decent price, so I bought it. Been shooting it a lot, even a 200 yard benchrest competiton with Irons. I did OK, the Pros kicked my butt. I did not come in last.
I shoot sporter rifle, so I tried it one evening for a match. Team captain said it does not make weight (7.5 lbs) so I went back to my Scoped 541-T.
Then I read the rules.... No weight limit for Irons, No minimum on trigger pull, just has to be safe.
Next I bought an Anschutz 1416 HB with the good trigger. I bought Anschutz adjustable rear sight and a 22 mm front sight with different size Iris.
I shot it in a 100 yard offhand match. I shot a 451, my score is usually 260 give or take.
When I shoot the RFC Offhand Rifle match at 25 or 50 yards, sometimes my IRONS scores are higher.
This season I plan to shoot sporter rifle with the irons. There is one other fellow that says he might too.
My 222 over 20 gauge has a peep sight, My 10-22 has a peep sight like M1. Both work great or their intended purpose.
For stock Irons on a rifle, I can't hit much because the rear sight is so far forward. Takes time to line up and See clearly. Put a Peep on and life is good.
I am 55 been wearing glasses all my life (Blessed with poor vision) now I have porgressive lenses. I just find the spot that makes the front sight clear.
David
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
As for learning to use iron sights it is important since most guns still do use iron sights and especially if you're going to shoot handguns you should learn to shoot with iron sights.
Actually, the exact opposite of the first part of your statement is the case.
There are very few factory rifles made with iron sights these days. Those that are, are purpose-built brush/truck guns and Scout-type rifles. The vast majority of rifles off the assembly line today are d&t'd for scope mounts or include them as standard.
Photon Guy
New member
I don't think I've ever seen a stagecoach that wasn't part of a museum and I certainly haven't seen one on any street. Stick-shift cars are still plentiful, especially in the low-end, used and classic market. I just drove my '85 Jeep CJ-7 to town and back a few minutes ago, 4-speed and all. Plus, driving a stick is just fun.
I take your point though that it's not the same as shooting iron sights. You are correct that most rifles and virtually all pistols come with irons, effectively making it at must-have skill.
You still do find stage coaches in places like NYC where they have them on the street and you can get a ride as some people, particularly tourists like to ride them and have the open view of everything. You also find them at theme parks that do reenactments of historical time periods. I know of a theme park that does reenactments of the wild west cowboy days and they have actors that do shootouts on the street where they shoot blanks and use blood capsules. They have a stage coach there that you can take a ride on and on the ride it gets held up by an outlaw. They still do use stage coaches today for specific purposes, namely entertainment and reenactment, they just aren't used the way they used to be used as a primary means of transporting groups of people long distances since now we've got cars and buses to do that. A person might choose to drive a stick shift for nostalgic purposes, because they like the function, and because supposedly there are certain advantages that stick shifts have over automatics particularly with the transmission although with modern advancements in automatic transmissions there might not be that much of an advantage today. They still do make modern stick shifts but a driver can get by just fine without learning to use one. I would put learning to drive a stick shift in the same category of learning to use a lever action rifle or almost in the same category of learning to use a revolver. A shooter can get along just fine without ever picking up or using a revolver but they still do make revolvers, quite a bit as a matter of fact and lots of people like to shoot revolvers and even though the technology is older revolvers do have certain advantages over semi autos.
I suppose if somebody is shooting just rifles they could get by without ever shooting with iron sights since they do make rifles without iron sights and that are for use only with a scope but if you're going to shoot handguns you would have to learn to shoot with iron sights. I never saw a handgun that didn't have iron sights and that was meant for just scope use. As it is I can't really compare iron sights with scopes as I've never trained with scopes although I would like to learn.
Photon Guy
New member
So how is it to put a scope on a rifle with iron sights and shoot it? I've seen many of the rifles that are meant for scopes don't have iron sights as the front sight can get in the way when you're using a scope. Is that a problem?I have been shooting irons all my life. Scope too. My first rifles were 22 with Irons, then I put a scope on a 22. I learned to shoot both from a young age.
Photon Guy
New member
There are very few factory rifles made with iron sights these days. Those that are, are purpose-built brush/truck guns and Scout-type rifles. The vast majority of rifles off the assembly line today are d&t'd for scope mounts or include them as standard.
Many of the rifles I see today have iron sights although I've noticed there are companies such as Cooper that only make rifles for scopes and which don't have iron sights.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Lets compare factory scopes to factory ironsights and see what kind of track record they each have...Over the years I've seen at least as many broken/bent front sight posts or missing,bent,broken rear sights as I have seen decent(by decent, I mean name brand mid-grade or better) quality scopes fail.
Decent aftermarket ironsights aren't going to fail very often either.
Using even a 3X scope at 3 yards on a moving deer isn't very effective as I found out a few years ago. And that is why my deer gun now has bayonet mount(just joking).
I do try to set-up a scope with much power with shortest available see through rings and iron sights. You can't get a great cheek weld on both, but using the irons inside 50 yards it isn't a problem.
First off, what kind of iron sight are we are speaking of here: aperature sights or blade sights?Iron sights require the eye to line up 3 objects that are 3 different distances from the eye. That is impossible and at at any time 2 will be out of focus
For all but the most demanding target shooting, aperature (peep) sights do NOT require alignment of 3 objects. Many think the front post has to be positioned exactly in the center of the rear aperture hole (which cannot be in focus) for the shot to be accurate, and if it is not, the shot will be way off. Not true. The human eye naturally tends to do the centering without conscious effort. In fact, if you look through a rear aperature and then back up from it slightly, you will see a light spot right in the center. The eye will tend to go for that spot without thinking about it. I aimed a rested aperature-sighted rifle at the bullseye, making sure everything I could possibly align was correct. Then without touching the rifle, I moved my head back and forth from one side of the peep to the other and saw that the front post stayed aligned with the bullseye. The size of the rear aperature IS important; accuracy with a half-inch peep will be pretty bad and accuracy with a 0.050 hole will be quite good. But after that, the main thing to do is align the front post with the target - only 2 objects.
In my opinion, blade type iron sights are terrible and DO require alignment of 3 objects. Nuff said.
Oh, and it is NEVER possible to have the front sight and target in focus at the same time - the eye just doesn't work that way.
I would say scopes are a better sighting system if: 1) you have a controlled situation with generally good shooting conditions; 2) you have enough time to acquire the target; 3) you require the highest degree of accuracy; and 4) your eyes are aging and front sight focus is difficult.So it sounds like scopes are all around superior to iron sights.
I would say aperature iron sights are better if: 1) you are in poor weather conditions (snow, rain, etc.) or any condition where a scope could be easily damaged; 2) you have very little time to acquire the target; 3) you do not require the utmost accuracy; and 4) your eyes are young and front sight/target focus is good.