Iron sights or No sights?

[dentodoc]

I really like Winchester rifles, but I would like other people's opinions as to which they prefer in a rifle: Iron sights or no sights? I still think iron sights are the best way to go in case you stumble and fall and break your scope. I know some would argue that it makes little difference as you will have to place a scope on rifle without sights anyway. I have both, but prefer iron sights. Comments and opinions? Thanks!

[ConRich]

On some rifles, not all, it is possible to mount a scope useing quick detach rings so that you can use either the scope or iron sights. Like having your cake and eating it too.

Rich

[swampdog]

I like rifles that come with irons. It cost me $50 to get a front mount
tapped onto a barrel recently. It's much easier to take the sights off
and put plug screws in than it is to add irons later.
I think the no sights option is a cost saving measure that I wish they
had never come up with. While I use a scope most of the time, I like
the option of irons for the "what if" scenarios.
My grandfather had some choice words about this practice. Something
about "cheap b@$!%rds".
He would have never bought one like that, but he was
known to be somewhat "ornery".

Take a kid shooting, every chance you get.

[Foxman]

In actual fact the drilling and fitting of open sights can adversley affect the accuracy of the barrel as it is done at the end of th barrel making process. I prefer no sights on my guns as in every case I'm going to fit a scope, whether low or high powered. If you "stumble" hard enough to knock a scope way out of line it would do the same to your open sights, you would still have to re zero the rifle. I always take a backup rifle on a hunt anyway for that one in a million accident.

[swampdog]

In actual fact the drilling and fitting of open sights can adversley affect the accuracy of the barrel as it is done at the end of th barrel making process.

I had to think about that one for a second. By that logic, fitting the barrel to the
action or the action to the stock, improperly, could also adversely effect accuracy.
They can't very well sell you a "rifle" without a stock or action but they can sell you
one without sights. With good PR, you'll even thank them for it.
I don't believe that a rifle with iron sights properly installed is any less accurate
than one without. I do believe that improperly installed sights can effect accuracy.
I know it makes it harder on the gunmakers and they save money by not doing it.

I'm respectfully asking for enlightenment if I'm in error. If properly installed irons
make a rifle less accurate through harmonics or whatever, I'd like to know about
it.

[Olaf]

Properly installed iron sights will not ruin accuracy....on any but the most marginal of barrels. Occasionally, a particular barrel may not shoot as well, after iron sights are installed. But, in most cases, the mass of the irons is not sufficient to cause a meaningful change in barrel harmonics. There is, of course, a greater chance of accuracy being affected when irons are installed on a very light profile barrel. However, on "normal" weight barrel profiles, installation of irons usually makes no difference.

[Dave R]

I say, get the irons. If you're ever out hunting and bang your scope, and break it or lose your zero, you can still remove it and use the irons.

But I admit I'm a belt-and-suspenders kinda guy. And neither of my varmit rifles has iron sights. But I wish they did.

[hillmillenia]

It drives me crazy that any rifle would be put on the rack for sale w/o iron sights. This is a recent thing as 20 years ago all rifles had 'em. Granted modern optics rarely fail but they they do and one should always "be prepared"...Where have I heard that before?:)

[Art Eatman]

Sorry, but breaking a scope just isn't something I worry about. I've walked across some of the roughest country in SW Texas for over 30 years, now, and that just hasn't happened.

I have a backup rifle in camp, anyway.

Art

[Foxman]

It doesnt foul the barrel up fitting them so much as taking them off a barrel set up with them on, but +1 on the lighter barrel being more likely to be affected. I like Art have been in some pretty rough places and never had to abandon a hunt due to a damaged scope, only once had to use the backup rifle and that was when the rifle slipped out of cold frozen hands and somersalted into a rocky stream, landing on the scope ( S&B 6x 42) it bent the tube and dinged the front bell, but it was only a couple of inches out and re zeroed ok. However the scope must have leaked and it did start to fog up a bit, so i used the backup rifle and scope, but I could have carried on. They fixed and returned it in 4 weeks at a very low price too considering the shipping costs out of it.
For me the front sight catches in everything when trying to creep through brush and such and just causes me more problems I don't need, when I'm not going to use it anyway.

[stevelyn]

I prefer irons.

[TPAW]

I would not buy a rifle if it did not have sights. And no, sights do not ruin accuracy. Many guys out there including myself can shoot sub moa with a scoped iron sighted rifle.

[Ruger4570]

Ok,, you have a rifle with factory iron sights and you put a scope on it. In reality, how many people do you think actually sight in with the irons and with the scope too. I would bet it is no more than 10% of the actual owners at best. I have hiked some really nasty country in my life and never had a problem with my scopes failing either.

[Dave R]

In reality, how many people do you think actually sight in with the irons and with the scope too. Me, for one. I always sight in the irons before scoping.

[TPAW]

Ok,, you have a rifle with factory iron sights and you put a scope on it. In reality, how many people do you think actually sight in with the irons and with the scope too. I would bet it is no more than 10% of the actual owners at best. I have hiked some really nasty country in my life and never had a problem with my scopes failing either.

What does it matter how many people.........., it's just a matter of personal choice. To answer your question, I sight with both. It's just comforting to know that if you damage your scope on a hunt (it happened to me) you can pull it off and use the sights, or, hunt dense cover with the iron sights if you wish. The best of both worlds. To me, having a rifle without sights, is like driving a car without a spare. ;) Besides, we pay enough for the rifles we own, why not get all you can out of it. There is no reasonable reason not to have sights. It's just a way for the company's to save money and charge you more. We should demand sights from the company's or don't buy their products. You'll see how fast they put them back on. It's all about money!JMO