Bolt action with iron sights
- Thread starter gmarr
- Start date
Unless your absolutely set on buying new, you might check out the consignment rack at the LGS or peruse the tables at a local gunshow for any decent "pre-owned" bolt-rifles with irons.
Last fun-show in my area I saw several Remingtons, Winchesters, and a couple of converted mausers, all wearing irons (a couple had scopes mounted too), that were still in good shape. They'd make decent budget hunting rifles.
One of the few options, but they ain't cheap. Affordable means something different to different people.
https://ruger.com/products/guideGun/specSheets/47118.html
Most of the iron sights on rifles are rather fragile and were more for decoration than actual use. I've literally had far more iron sights fail than scopes. The exception are the rifles designed for the military or dangerous game hunting. The ones on the Ruger Guide gun appear to be pretty rugged.
https://ruger.com/products/guideGun/specSheets/47118.html
Most of the iron sights on rifles are rather fragile and were more for decoration than actual use. I've literally had far more iron sights fail than scopes. The exception are the rifles designed for the military or dangerous game hunting. The ones on the Ruger Guide gun appear to be pretty rugged.
101combatvet
New member
Iron sights can be easily installed, don't let that keep you from buying a good rifle.
QUOTE: Most Remington 700’s had sights at one time.
Most older bolt-action rifles came with irons from the factory. Regarding having open sights installed on modern rifles that didn't come with them, it's less expensive than investing in an older rifle that has them but the the work is not necessarily cheap. Many years ago, I stopped at the Williams Gun Sight Company in Davison, Michigan and inquired as to the cost of having their irons installed on a couple of Ruger Model 77 rifles I had. I was quoted a price of over $100.00 each. I decided that modern made quality scopes probably negate any need for backup sights.
Most older bolt-action rifles came with irons from the factory. Regarding having open sights installed on modern rifles that didn't come with them, it's less expensive than investing in an older rifle that has them but the the work is not necessarily cheap. Many years ago, I stopped at the Williams Gun Sight Company in Davison, Michigan and inquired as to the cost of having their irons installed on a couple of Ruger Model 77 rifles I had. I was quoted a price of over $100.00 each. I decided that modern made quality scopes probably negate any need for backup sights.
44caliberkid
New member
I had a Savage 111 that came with iron sights. Only paid $300 for it. Gun shows are full of Remington 700’s with iron sights that are $600 - $700, or make a deal. New Remington 700 BDL’s still come with iron sights. Check manufacturer websites. Many sporterized Springfield 1903’s still have the iron sights. A lot of north eastern state hunters still use them, as well as Alaskan hunters. Should be an easy find.
BornFighting88
New member
What do you consider affordable?? Gunsite scout by Ruger is a nice option. Barrel a bit shorter than you want.
Lots of REM 700’s and Winchester 70’s out there that fit your bill, too.
Lots of REM 700’s and Winchester 70’s out there that fit your bill, too.
If you don't want a used rifle, then the new CZ 600 LUX comes close to your specifications. The 600 lux is chambered for .308 win or .30-06 springfield with 20 inch barrels. The lux has iron sights, a walnut stock, and a detachable box magazine. The present MSRP is 849 $. It is supposed to be available in 2022.
Another currently manufactured rifle, which comes to mind, is the Savage 110 Hog hunter. The hog hunter comes in a .308 win chambering, has a 20 inch barrel, and has factory iron sights. MSRP is 669 $.
Another currently manufactured rifle, which comes to mind, is the Savage 110 Hog hunter. The hog hunter comes in a .308 win chambering, has a 20 inch barrel, and has factory iron sights. MSRP is 669 $.
Last edited:
My god, the dreaded “affordable” word. Just what is up with that? Why even use the word? In most cases that is “code” for cheap - which in today’s world more often than not means mediocre or worse. Some folks expect quality to be “affordable” to them….but depending on if they make $65,000 a year or $250,000 the word has different meanings. I seldom respond to posts with the word “affordable” in them, but given the above posts asking for clarification….
.
.
My god, the dreaded “affordable” word. Just what is up with that? Why even use the word? In most cases that is “code” for cheap - which in today’s world more often than not means that the poster can only afford mediocre or worse. Some folks expect quality to be “affordable” to them….but depending on if they make $65,000 a year or $250,000 the word has very different meanings. I seldom respond to posts with the word “affordable” in them, but given the above posts asking for clarification….
.
.
I handled and shot a CZ 550 with a 20" barrel in .30-06. They called it a "carbine," and also offered the same model in .308. With the factory irons it was dead-nuts accurate @ 100yds.
Haven't seen one of the model 600s like you describe, but if it's like the 550 those will be GREAT .30-cal carbines for hunting in bush/brush and think timber. Essentially a short-range, hard-hitting carbine.
@Justjake: You are, of course correct about the CZ's. I always respect your taste and opinions. As discussed in a couple of previous threads here, the CZ 550's and 527's are gone (unless you find "new, old stock") and will be replaced with the model 600. The CZ 600 is an entirely different action. The 600 LUX will be available in .308 win, .30-06 springfield, .223 rem, and .300 win mag. They're supposed to be out now or soon. I mentioned the 600 because it seemed to exactly fit what the original poster was looking for. As for "affordable", it seems like anything new, under 1000 $ MSRP, is affordable (i.e. entry level) when today's prices are examined. And dealers don't seem to be discounting much.
As for savage versus CZ, I would likely wait for a CZ, rather than take a savage. The last three savages which came into the family in the last year or so have been...well...disappointments. Maybe my sample size is too small, or maybe savage hasn't changed but the other rifle brands have improved a lot. Don't know, but I'm starting to shy away from savage.
As for savage versus CZ, I would likely wait for a CZ, rather than take a savage. The last three savages which came into the family in the last year or so have been...well...disappointments. Maybe my sample size is too small, or maybe savage hasn't changed but the other rifle brands have improved a lot. Don't know, but I'm starting to shy away from savage.
Last edited:
deadcoyote
New member
I have a 110 Hog Hunter. I like it and I like the gold bead front sight with the black rear leaf. The sights are tall to specifically clear a silencer. Some of my buddies don’t like it, it doesn’t bother me.
Penny-foolish and short-sighted.
Even crappy Chi-Com optics are running $400-$500. A good quality scope should cost as much or more than the rifle. *Most* rifles will shoot decently if the barrel is decent and the stock fit is correct.
The irons are supposed to be there, at least in modern times, as an emergency back-up for lens or reticle failure (fogged-up), etc.
Back in the day, of course, growing up on .22s and such, nobody gave this two-step procedure a second thought (i.e., zero irons first, then the optic). Young aspiring marksmen were schooled on how to actually hit a target with an iron-sighted rifle, calculate distance, use hold-overs, etc. Pretty much what the Johnny Appleseed movement offers today.
That's why, when fall rolls around and there's that early whiff of venison in the air, the thinking Fuddley hits the range and starts with the irons first - learning where his deer rifle will hit with them at a given distance. Then he properly zeros the irons with his load of choice before mounting the scope.
Some modern rifle with a solid set of irons, like Ruger's GSR, make this such a simple task even the dumbest barnwood-buildin' hillbilly can do it.
The words you highlighted were intended to be facetious; sorry if they were lost on you.
The reason I was looking to put irons on the rifles was because I understand the backup insurance they can provide. Over thirty years ago when my kids were still in school meant that I didn't have enough pennies to be foolish. Deciding I didn't really need any kind of a sight other than a scope was a spin on Aesop's "sour grapes" fable, "...the scorning or belittling of something only because it can't be had." I was playing the role of the frustrated "fox"-ergo the
simile.