Iron sights and optic sights on same gun

[blackwidowp61]

Yet another question I have seen on this thread is the OP wanting a rifle with both iron sights and optic sights. Most would agree that the see-through rings are a waste of time and money, unless you wanted to find out what getting brained by a scope feels like. Wouldn't a quality set of QD return-to zero mounts and rings be the answer?

[3Crows]

Yep, that is what I do. Warne QR rings on two rifles (Marlins) and on a third, while the mount is not specifically a QR type, it takes me all of three minutes to remove and install and it holds zero (Savage with cantilever AR type mount).


Why, because I want to be able to carry my rifles in my Jeep in a scabbard without a scope or for self defense purposes(against toothy creatures with ill intent) when camping or hiking and when the mission is specifically hunting, mount my optics.

J

[Scorch]

Forget about irons. A good 1.5-5X or 2.5-8X scope will handle it all, close in and farther away.

[44 AMP]

Forget about irons. A good 1.5-5X or 2.5-8X scope will handle it all, close in and farther away.

It will.

Until/unless it breaks. Or the lens get covered in mud, snow, tree sap, rain, or anything else that would fog or fuzz your vision.

it doesn't happen often these days, but if you're in the field and your scope goes belly up (no matter the reason) you're done, unless you have iron sights on the rifle AND a tool to remove the scope.

That's one of the virtues of the old style Weaver scope rings, there's lots of things that can fit in those large screw slots so you can get the scope off without having to go back to where you left your actual tools...

[std7mag]

I don't know what you people are doing, but i have never had or seen a scope break.

Yes the Warne or Larue (not sure i spelled that right) would be your best bet.

[blackwidowp61]

I believe that the Warne rings can be removed with just your fingers...no tools needed. Pretty good thinking there on their part.

[Skadoosh]

Iron sights are an insurance policy that you will never use.

[3Crows]

Originally Posted by blackwidowp61

I believe that the Warne rings can be removed with just your fingers...no tools needed. Pretty good thinking there on their part.

The Warne QR rings are of extreme quality, steel construction and have a locking lever, no tools required after the initial set up. Plus, due to their top pinch screws, they are sleek and add little or no width to your rifle.


Warne OR rings, new rifle still settling in (the rifle and me that is, the rings are good to go):



And on my SBL:




3C

[turkeestalker]

I've a few rifles with iron sights that I have the old Weaver Pivot Mount bases and rings on. A couple of older Mossberg 800s, one A and one B, a 6mm Remington 742, and a few others.
They're not very highly regarded any more by most folks these days, but when set up right they work as well as most any quick detach set up will, (maybe better), except the higher end ones.
Bonus is that you don't have to detach them, and they do a pretty good job of returning to zero, (or close enough), most all of the time.
Especially with something like this Marlin M45, though it almost obscures the rear sight on this particular one, but not quite.
Plus you can find them pretty affordably since no one seems to care for them any more.

[turkeestalker]

I do have QD rings on a few other long guns like on a couple of turkey hunting shotguns specifically, (and Warne are good quality while being affordable IMO).
They work fine, but one word of advice is to pay a few dollars more and buy the steel ones not the alloy, if you want a better chance of maintaining zero.
That has been my experience anyway, I'm sure others are different.

[kraigwy]

I went to sniper school using the M21 where you had a scope and irons on my M14.

I taught sniper schools using the M21s and mostly the M1C/Ds, where you could also use both.

I've shoot competion using a Model 70 300 WM using the Weaver T-10 and Redfield Palma sights. Shooting the same rifle in 1000 yard any rifle-any sight and any rifle-Iron sights.

I also use the a 308 Model 70 target rifle using the same glass and irons.

I also shoot a H&R 5200 using redfield irons and a 24X Remington scope shooting small bore.

Latest is my M4 with 1-4 scope and irons with detachable carrying handle.

So yeah I use irons and scopes the same rifles.

[jmr40]

I used to worry about such things. Now my advice is buy a quality scope and forget irons. Even the military is going that way now. As long as you keep the low magnification at 3X or less they work just fine up close. Go down to 1X and they are amazingly fast to use. Much faster than irons or dots.

Until/unless it breaks. Or the lens get covered in mud, snow, tree sap, rain, or anything else that would fog or fuzz your vision.

I've been hunting since the 1970's and I've never had a scope fail to work. I've had iron sights fail on me twice. Unless you're talking about the heavy duty protected irons put on military rifles iron sights are more fragile than even a mid range ($200ish) scope. And decent irons cost more than a decent scope.

Plus they are almost useless in low light encountered during prime hunting hours.

But if someone really want to use backup iron sights some sort of QD system is the way to go. Several years ago I bought a set to use on a lightweight gun set up for brush hunting. I had a trim 1-4X20 scope and planned to use irons in case of a scope failure. Until I figured out the mounts weighed more than the scope and it really messed up the balance.

While not advertised as so, I've had very good luck removing scopes mounted in Weaver style rings and the Factory Ruger 77 rings and having them return to zero. If concerned about scope failure, a 2nd scope pre-zeroed would be a better plan IMO.

[gb_in_ga]

I've got a scope/irons setup on my Marlin 336. It consists of my scope (a Leupold VX1 2-7x33) mounted on a Weaver 63B mount with Leupold low profile QRW rings. The scope comes off in seconds, no tools required, and it holds zero.

The irons are really only intended to be a quickly available Plan B, because scopes actually do go south occasionally. It is a Murphy's Law kind of thing. There's very little "cost" there, because the QRW rings aren't all that much more expensive than conventional rings.

[RC20]

I had see through rings on my 7mm for 20 years.

Never an issue.

Sold the gun, guy who bought it was happy with the setup, he hunts in dense brush and wanted that option.

[Mobuck]

Most of my rifles don't have iron sights at all.
Use a good scope of an appropriate magnification and LEARN TO MOUNT THE RIFLE PROPERLY. There won't be a need for irons if this comment is followed.

[bamaranger]

I'd have to agree to some extent, with the change in the phrase to, "many of my rifles don't have iron sights at all." Further, I have pulled the iron sights off several of my sporters that came so equipped. On top of that, on some of my rifles that retain their iron sights but have a 'scope mounted, I have no easy means afield to pull the scope if it went sour.

I have a lot of time, I hunt a lot, close to home. If a scope goes bad, I can mark it off to bad luck, go home and get another rifle (or maybe back to the truck), and get to hunt again, soon, maybe even that same AM/PM. Not everybody is that fortunate. If I were limited to a short, couple of week(end) season at deer camp, and had to drive a couple of hours to get there, I would rethink things. Likewise, if I had a bunch of cash sunk in a guided hunt off somewhere, I would have iron sights, and a means to remove a bad scope, and spare scopes, pre sighted with rings, in camp, even a second rifle at camp if it were plausible. But I don't have to in my circumstances.

I have not had a "decent" scope in my collection fail. By decent, I mean a scope from one of the big names in about the $200 dollar range +/- and up. I have had a number of lesser priced scopes, mostly on .22's, come unglued. I have a Mini30 and a Ruger .44 semi carbine that have beat cheaper scopes to pieces in pretty short order. Those carbines, and all but one of my .22's, now have better scopes and have not given further problems. But stuff happens.....however my experience is a decent scope these days is a pretty reliable item.

I still encounter see-thru mounts on rifles in the woods and clubs, usually holding economy scopes. My Dad was a fan, but I doubt Dad ever spent more than $100 bucks on a scope, so he had failures, and hunted in the era when 'scopes were more prone to failure as well. I agree they place the head to high off the comb in most instances, make the rifle clunky, and are prone to knocks and blows due to their higher profile, not conducive to long life on a budget scope. I think they compromise trajectory a bit too, though not enough to effect a lot of woods distance shooting.

I've posted before that a set of Leupold QRL rings I have return to a useful zero, but they are as ugly as all get out, and prone to snag stuff as well. I have a couple of rifles that I have taped a hex/torx key under the ammo butt cuff, very secure, that would allow me to pull the 'scope and use the factory iron sights in the event of a failure. On those rifles, both equipped with peep sights, I can still run the metal sights well enough to hit game if that was the course I wanted to take (and not call it quits and bail for another rifle).

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

I have rifles scoped and rifles with open sights but only one rifle that has both. (model 7 yote taker) I prefer open sights but have no problem using a scope when needed. I prefer scope mounting systems from Leupold. Couple of my rifles are outfitted with stationary rings and mounts. Couple are outfitted with (lever type) anyplace removable rings. All stationary rings are High rings. I do not enjoy shooting a scope that's mounted to hug its barrel. The perk in High ring use? Such rings create a dandy carry handle and never any black-out in optics have I incurred.

[Don Fischer]

Originally Posted by Scorch

Forget about irons. A good 1.5-5X or 2.5-8X scope will handle it all, close in and farther away.

Yep! Love mt 2 3/4x and 1-4x scopes!

[Don Fischer]

I did have a scope beak a couple time's. One was an inexpensive Tasco, should have been on a 22 but I tried it on a 25-06. 25-06 killed it! The other was a Rerfield 2 3/4x. It fell out of the gun rack and broke the cross wires. For years now, I have carried along a spare rifle, My Redfield taught me that. BTW, that was back about 1971 and I'm still using that scope today, it's about my favorite.

[dgludwig]

I've a few rifles with iron sights that I have the old Weaver Pivot Mount bases and rings on.

I have had one of these Weaver mount systems holding a Redfield "Widefield", 2 3/4X5 scope on one of my favorite whitetail rifles, my Savage Model 99 "BrushGun", chambered in .358 Winchester, for the past forty years. Never had a problem with it holding zero after years of hunting with it in the thick cover of some tangled cedar swamps in upper Michigan.

I decided on the pivot-type mount more to give me quick access to the irons should the scope get clogged with snow than having any angst over the scope failing. But, if the scope should break...

[T. O'Heir]

Toothy creatures don't have ill intentions. People have ill intentions. Toothy creatures are just trying to stay alive.
Wouldn't trust a QD scope mount to reliably hold zero. And irons can get damaged just as fast as any scope.
"...see-through rings are..." Put the scope too high, but they work.
Getting brained by a scope means the thing wasn't mounted correctly or the stock is too short.

[dgludwig]

This discussion reminds me of one hunter I noticed carrying a rifle having "see-thru" rings holding his scope on but-no irons to see through those abominable high-rise rings! That's what I call having your cake but not being able to eat it.

[RC20]

Most of my rifles don't have iron sights at all.
Use a good scope of an appropriate magnification and LEARN TO MOUNT THE RIFLE PROPERLY. There won't be a need for irons if this comment is followed.

Try to see something in a scope in the brush. Not happening.

Some hunt in places where there are no nasty big critters who take umbrage to your presence and or want what you have shot.

My brother and I spent a night skinning out a moose with our back to a deep creek, lots of guts, quarters of moose etc with us and in the boat that was behind us.

All the spare rounds were in my gun and in my pocket. His job was to illuminate.

He was the better shot, my gun had the iron sights for such a possibility.

When we got down the creek to our support boat, the CB had a report from a F&G agent who had a grizzly take his moose away from him, 2 miles from where we were.

So yes there is a place for iron sights. See a dangerous game PH with a scope on his gun? Ever wonder why doubles don't have scopes?

I have nothign against scope, love em.

They can and do have issues, iron sights while they can be damaged the problem is obviously and having both damaged at the same time is unlikely.

Fine if you don't like or want to use iron, but don't try to insist they have no use and are not good backup.

[Don Fischer]

Originally Posted by RC20

Try to see something in a scope in the brush. Not happening.

Some hunt in places where there are no nasty big critters who take umbrage to your presence and or want what you have shot.

My brother and I spent a night skinning out a moose with our back to a deep creek, lots of guts, quarters of moose etc with us and in the boat that was behind us.

All the spare rounds were in my gun and in my pocket. His job was to illuminate.

He was the better shot, my gun had the iron sights for such a possibility.

When we got down the creek to our support boat, the CB had a report from a F&G agent who had a grizzly take his moose away from him, 2 miles from where we were.

So yes there is a place for iron sights. See a dangerous game PH with a scope on his gun? Ever wonder why doubles don't have scopes?

I have nothign against scope, love em.

They can and do have issues, iron sights while they can be damaged the problem is obviously and having both damaged at the same time is unlikely.

Fine if you don't like or want to use iron, but don't try to insist they have no use and are not good backup.

I suspect if you were to try either a 2 3/4x or say a 1-4x on 1x hunting in the brush, you'd kill to get one. Absolutely nothing like low power in the brush.

[3Crows]

Originally Posted by T. O'Heir

Toothy creatures don't have ill intentions. People have ill intentions. Toothy creatures are just trying to stay alive.
Wouldn't trust a QD scope mount to reliably hold zero. And irons can get damaged just as fast as any scope.
"...see-through rings are..." Put the scope too high, but they work.

I think you just want to argue. If the toothy critters want to stay alive, then I would say that goes considerably more for me.

I carry my rifles on an ATV, in my Jeep and on rare occasion on a horse and my scabbard does not fit a scoped rifle. It to have a few favorite rifles I trust to work when I need them to and to be able to remove the scopes for multiple missions.

The Warne QR rings, believe it or not, do return to zero, over and over again. They can be fully trusted to be on target at any reasonable and normal hunting ranges. If you are a sniper working at several thousand yards, then maybe not.

I will argue with myself on one bit, I have a Nikon 1X4 African on my SBL and set a 1X it is fast to acquire a target, even faster than with iron sights, especially in dim lighting. But that said, a scope still adds weight and girth that is not easily accommodated in a slim scabbard as is going without a scope. As I said, for defense, typically no scope, range will be close (because if it is not close it is not self preservation) and for hunting the scope is typically installed.

3C