I'm looking for a bolt rifle in 308 with iron sights. Want to use it for hog hunting at close distances and deer for longer distances. Maybe some black bear as well. I would also need a drilled and tapped receiver for optics. I know CZ has some options but are a bit pricey. I don't wanna drop a whole lot of money. Savage has the Hog Hunter but its got a little weight to it. I need it under 7lbs without scope for when carrying it out on the field. Any suggestions?
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.
Bolt Rifle with Iron Sights
- Thread starter PITT5150
- Start date
big al hunter
New member
Most of the models that I have with irons installed were purchased used. It seems the major manufacturers have stopped putting them on factory rifles. Check the used racks and gunbroker.com.
Irons sighted 308 ..... short range hogs ..... longer for deer ..... 7 lbs ....
http://www.ruger.com/products/gunsiteScoutRifle/models.html
http://www.ruger.com/products/gunsiteScoutRifle/models.html
I wouldn't waste my time with irons. Or one of the scout scopes. Get any bolt rifle you like and mount a 1-4X scope on it. It is quicker up close than irons, much, much, much, better in low light, and gives you some versatility for long range shots.
The military has been using optics in the 0X to 4X range mounted conventionally on their rifles for a while now. They have thouroughly tested all options and found this option better in every way.
The military has been using optics in the 0X to 4X range mounted conventionally on their rifles for a while now. They have thouroughly tested all options and found this option better in every way.
Along with the Gunsite Scout Rifle, Ruger makes their Hawkeye Compact MAgnum in .308, which had iron sights.
http://ruger.com/products/m77RugerCompactMagnum/models.html
http://ruger.com/products/m77RugerCompactMagnum/models.html
One thing you may have noticed, or not, is that most modern bolt guns have stocks designed to shoot a scope mounted about 1.5 inches above the bore which puts your eye too high to quickly aquire the iron sights. You will have to look around to find one with the right stock so you can quickly shoot it without fishing around for the sights. That's why I built a custom Scout. I can just snap it up and the sights are right on target.
Another "Aye" for the used options. If the Hog Hunter is too heavy, then perhaps a Rem 788, 700, or something of the sort might be up your alley. It would be doubtful that you would find a Savage 99 in .308 in your price range (and they might be over your weight limit too)- but those have always been sweet little rifles.
Jimbob86,
If you look at the Ruger page, the 308 is listed in the middle, and if you check out the spec sheet, it lists iron sights. Maybe they aren't making them anymore, but they are listed on the Ruger web site.
Bud's has one listed on Gunbroker
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=304346542
If you look at the Ruger page, the 308 is listed in the middle, and if you check out the spec sheet, it lists iron sights. Maybe they aren't making them anymore, but they are listed on the Ruger web site.
Bud's has one listed on Gunbroker
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=304346542
Ruger was putting irons on some models of the 77, and international. I don't know if they still do.
I've had them put on several rifles. I use a Williams Shorty ramp with a Sourdough blade, and generally a Lyman reciever sight, though I did one Ruger 77 with a Williams Foolproof. Gun shows ar a good place to look for reciever sights, I've bought some fine old Redfield and lyman sights for pretty reasonable at gun shows. Often you have to ask if they have any parts under the table at likely looking tables. I have the front ramps screwed and sweated on, they are about bombproof.
You can use the Williams rear barrel sights also, but I like the reciever sights much better. For a scope backup, the barrel sights are OK. I've inletted under the butt pad to put the receiver sight slide in to have it with the gun at all times, it takes a Swiss Army knife or Leatherman to get the butt pad off. Takes maybe 5-10 minutes to get it out and on in case you dropped your scope and cratered it.
I agree about glass being better in general. Most of the problems people have with scopes is having too much magnufication, or leaving them at high magnification, or fitting them poorly and it takes too long to get on them and see. When properly fitted up, you throw the gun up and what you want to shoot seems to magically have a crosshair on it. The see through rings are the worst offender in that regard, the worst of both worlds.
You can get fairly tall ramps that work well with stocks intended for scopes.
I've had them put on several rifles. I use a Williams Shorty ramp with a Sourdough blade, and generally a Lyman reciever sight, though I did one Ruger 77 with a Williams Foolproof. Gun shows ar a good place to look for reciever sights, I've bought some fine old Redfield and lyman sights for pretty reasonable at gun shows. Often you have to ask if they have any parts under the table at likely looking tables. I have the front ramps screwed and sweated on, they are about bombproof.
You can use the Williams rear barrel sights also, but I like the reciever sights much better. For a scope backup, the barrel sights are OK. I've inletted under the butt pad to put the receiver sight slide in to have it with the gun at all times, it takes a Swiss Army knife or Leatherman to get the butt pad off. Takes maybe 5-10 minutes to get it out and on in case you dropped your scope and cratered it.
I agree about glass being better in general. Most of the problems people have with scopes is having too much magnufication, or leaving them at high magnification, or fitting them poorly and it takes too long to get on them and see. When properly fitted up, you throw the gun up and what you want to shoot seems to magically have a crosshair on it. The see through rings are the worst offender in that regard, the worst of both worlds.
You can get fairly tall ramps that work well with stocks intended for scopes.
Dr. Strangelove
New member
Look for an older model Ruger Model 77, I took the scope off mine (.308 Win) a few years ago and decided to try it out with the iron sights, haven't mounted a scope back yet.
It's much lighter, points much better, and makes a better dense woods rifle. It would make a great hog rifle.
It's much lighter, points much better, and makes a better dense woods rifle. It would make a great hog rifle.
Why are manufacturers moving away from iron sights?
For exactly the reason JMR40 stated...
A red dot sight (with zero magnification, if you choose) or a 1-4x will offer faster target acquisition, and greater accuracy, than irons.
Can anything be easier than "put the dot on it and shoot"?
Reliability is not a common issue (as long as you spend enough to get a quality optic), but it's always possible to put on "backup" irons if that's a real concern.
PITT5150 said:Why are manufacturers moving away from iron sights?
tobnpr said:For exactly the reason JMR40 stated...
A red dot sight (with zero magnification, if you choose) or a 1-4x will offer faster target acquisition, and greater accuracy, than irons.
Can anything be easier than "put the dot on it and shoot"?
Well, there's that, but I believe that the manufacturers realize that the vast majority of folks buying bolt rifles will mount a scope anyway. There's no reason to go to the added expense of mounting iron sights that most people won't use anyway. I've got irons on several rifles, most notably my levers and my A2 clone and I've even got them on some older bolt guns. I have irons on an '83 model Rem700 that I picked up last year in the used gun racks. Some of my single-shots have irons, some don't. It just depends.
VTRich and interlock, I stand corrected. Dunno how I missed that .....
Agreed.
It is the reverse of the situation I found with my older guns that were sold in the dinosaur days before scopes were common: Mount the gun and you were not looking at the target- you had a fine view of the bottom 1/3 of the ocular lens and no sight picture...... a $20 comb raising kit fixes this...... it would also help those folks with a "need" to put the Palomar Observatory atop their rifle, necessitating high or extra high rings..... and breaking contact with the stock if they wanted to see through the scope- often leading to complaints of "hard kicking" calibers ...... calibers like .30/06, .270, even .243!
One thing you may have noticed, or not, is that most modern bolt guns have stocks designed to shoot a scope mounted about 1.5 inches above the bore which puts your eye too high to quickly aquire the iron sights.
I agree about glass being better in general. Most of the problems people have with scopes is having too much magnufication, or leaving them at high magnification, or fitting them poorly and it takes too long to get on them and see. When properly fitted up, you throw the gun up and what you want to shoot seems to magically have a crosshair on it. The see through rings are the worst offender in that regard, the worst of both worlds.
Agreed.
It is the reverse of the situation I found with my older guns that were sold in the dinosaur days before scopes were common: Mount the gun and you were not looking at the target- you had a fine view of the bottom 1/3 of the ocular lens and no sight picture...... a $20 comb raising kit fixes this...... it would also help those folks with a "need" to put the Palomar Observatory atop their rifle, necessitating high or extra high rings..... and breaking contact with the stock if they wanted to see through the scope- often leading to complaints of "hard kicking" calibers ...... calibers like .30/06, .270, even .243!
Last edited:
Personally, I've always liked the idea of having iron sights on any rifle used for hunting as "back-ups". It's true that most good scopes made today will never require open sights as a hedge in the rare event of failure-but, have you ever heard of a fellow who goes by the name of Murphy? Especially when you're in the deep, dark woods miles from any town?
As mentioned, Ruger still makes a few rifles that come with open sights on them. I really like my International model, chambered in .308. And I like the idea that it came with a nice set of irons. After all, what's the down-side to having an auxillary set of sights in the, albeit rare, event of a scope mishap?
As mentioned, Ruger still makes a few rifles that come with open sights on them. I really like my International model, chambered in .308. And I like the idea that it came with a nice set of irons. After all, what's the down-side to having an auxillary set of sights in the, albeit rare, event of a scope mishap?
You said under 7 lbs. w/o optic..
And Savage lists the Hog Hunter at 7-1/4 pounds.
Aren't you splitting hairs here on a gun which is exactly what you described you're looking for over four ounces?
Dayum, man...Savage makes a great rifle, and the price can't be beat.
At $430 shipped (Buds), it's hundreds less than the Gunsite...enough to buy a decent optic for the same price as the bare Gunsite.
And Savage lists the Hog Hunter at 7-1/4 pounds.
Aren't you splitting hairs here on a gun which is exactly what you described you're looking for over four ounces?
Dayum, man...Savage makes a great rifle, and the price can't be beat.
At $430 shipped (Buds), it's hundreds less than the Gunsite...enough to buy a decent optic for the same price as the bare Gunsite.
How big does Piggy get where you live? Also what kind of terrain/vegetation does Piggy like? If you're going to go into the brush, a lever-action carbine might be more desirable. Handy, with fast follow-up shots.
Caliber is up for discussion, but a hot .44Mag should do for medium size, and .45-70 for the monsters. These would make nice deer guns for brush/close woods, also.
Caliber is up for discussion, but a hot .44Mag should do for medium size, and .45-70 for the monsters. These would make nice deer guns for brush/close woods, also.