Iron sights and optic sights on same gun

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
I think you must have the same rifle and scope and rings that I do. My 336SS is scoped with the Warne QR rings and the scope is a Leupold VX1 2X7X33mm.

3C
 
Last edited:
3Crows -- not quite. My rifle is a "new style" 336A (20", blued, forearm end cap), and the rings are Leupold, not Warne.
 
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.

Lets see, actually hunted for 30 years with my setup.

Worked perfectly as I wanted.
 
3Crows -- not quite. My rifle is a "new style" 336A (20", blued, forearm end cap), and the rings are Leupold, not Warne.
Well, we are of the same concept and thinking even if the bits vary only by branding. I like the Warne rings over the Leupold because they add no girth to the sleek Marlin 336. My 336 is the new and improved style also and I love it. The Leupold VX1 2X7X33 is perfect for the 336.

3C
 
Back
Top