Scope vs Iron Sights

M

Mosin-Marauder

New member
My dad and I really love shooting. We mainly shoot rifles, bolt action at that. He prefers optics on his rifle, whereas I like the simplicity of Iron Sights. Which do you guys prefer? Why? I prefer Iron sights because I feel less exposed. I feel like you expose yourself more with a scope. I also like the feel of Iron Sights and that you don't have to pay $400+ to replace a scope, where you can pay $10-$40 to get a new front or rear sight (which is in itself less likely to break.)
 
I recently started shooting iron sights as I purchased two semi's, an m1a scout and an ar. I routinely get 1.5-2" groups with my m1a. I bought a scope to see what the rifle was capable of... Not much of an improvement. Way more satisfaction with iron sights. I prefer irons...
 
Depends largely on your eyes, the gun, the end target size (paper or critter), and the distances you expect to be shooting at.

100 yards or less on relatively sizable targets, I can get by with irons & generally prefer them for cleaner lines & more compact overall dimensions.

If I need to go beyond that nowdays, or shoot at something smaller, I've increased the number of scopes on certain rifles here.
Denis
 
For me, and my area- it depends on what I'm going. For hunting open plains for prairie dog or yotes, I like a scope. But for heavy sage brush areas, breaks, and canyons- yeah, I like irons.

Whys? P-dogging isn't much fun unless you can see the little boogers at 1/4 mile- so a scope is all but mandatory with the guys I shoot with. For irons- I like GI peep sights. They aren't much good in low light, but in full light- they really make you feel one with tradition and the rifle.
 
I like scopes and optical devices for most practical shooting. My lever guns and US milsurps are just fine with Iron sights. They are definitely minute of deer in wooded or brushy areas. the Iron sights on Milsurp Mausers are the worst for me. YMMV
 
I've decided that optics are just plain better. Apparently so has the military. I read recently that they are no longer even teaching iron sight use. I've used both for years and am quite capable with good iron sights, but most of the factory irons are junk and a set of quality iron sights cost more than a quality scope. There are lots of $200-$300 scopes I'd trust anywhere. As far as accuracy is concerned there isn't much difference as long as you can see the target. But that is where optics win. In low light you will lose the ability to see iron sights and the target long before you lose that ability with decent optics.

Scopes aren't just useful at long range. In good light I can hit deer sized targets with irons out to 300 yards. At 15 minutes prior to sunrise, or 15 minutes after sunset, I cannot see anything beyond 10 yards in a thick forest without optics. This is exactly the most likely time for a hunter to be taking shots. (Legal shooting time is 30 minutes prior to sunrise and 30 minutes after sunset BTW)

Most people use too much magnification. For up close work a 1-4X scope is faster on target than irons on 1X, and has enough magnification for deer sized targets out to 400-500 yards on 4X. No matter how good your eyesight it takes longer to line up 3 objects with iron sights than to place the crosshairs on a target.

As to reliability, In 40+ years of hunting and shooting I've NEVER had a scope fail me. I have had iron sights break or fail on several occasions. The military style irons are pretty rugged, but most of what comes on sporting rifles are quite fragile and not very precise.
 
Both. My deer rifles have scopes for the purpose of quick clean kills. But my military style rifles have iron sites. and then again my 22's are half and half.

But if possible I prefer to mount scopes so you can still see the iron sites because scopes can break.

You also don't have to break the bank on a scope. Some times a $40 Tasco, Bushnell, Simmons are all you need. Besides if you're shooting Milsurp you don't want a scope that costs more than the rifle.
 
I prefer scopes also.. I am in to the extream long range shooting now. The thrill of shooting very long range and hitting your target is a rush for my old mind. Iron sights are also fun , but your ( me anyhow ) so limited as to how far you can shoot, unless you have a very large target. Which to me takes the fun out of it. Take one of those 3/4" white circles , stick it on a piece of cardboard and set that baby out to 800 yards. That is fun.
 
I shoot both iron sights and scopes.

Here lately I've been shooting my Savage 99 rifles more then any of my other rifles, all my 99's have iron sights.

A couple of my 99's have tang mounted aperture sights along with iron sights, with the aperture sight I'm more accurate on smaller targets at longer yardages then I am with the iron sights.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
 
I love iron sights but like others said for me it depends a lot on distance and type of rifle..if I'm shooting at 100 yards or less and only looking to get on paper I stick with irons..anything further or if I want to be more accurate I go for a scope..as for rifle type I love red dots on my ar's because they are much faster for getting on target..and also modern bolt actions in larger calibers (308 30-06 etc) I believe they have wasted potential without a scope because without it you can't take advantage of there full potential
 
I'm mostly a hunter, and mostly a deer hunter. Scopes keep me from Oopsies in shooting a cactus deer or stump deer at dawn or dusk. Ain't worth field dressing. "Iron sighter" people have been known to shoot human deer, also.

Then you get into the eyesight thing. There comes a time for the average fella, typically at around age forty, when the ability to focus on both sights as well as the target becomes difficult.
 
cactus deer or stump deer
Click to expand...

Species with which I am unfamiliar - neither sound particularly pleasant to dine on. :)

I'm definitely a scope guy (but also past 40, so...).

I only have about 2 or 3 rifles with iron sights, and those have peep rear sights and are strictly short-range / 50 yd weapons (T/C Hot Shot .22, AR15 in CQB config). I scope or ESD - used as verbs - everything, just about. Well, not handguns or wingshooting shotguns, but other longguns. I scope longguns that most people would not.

Turkey shotgun=> Scoped
IMI Timberwolf .357 pump=>Scoped
Savage 24 combo longgun=>Scoped
Most .22lrs, including the one dedicated to super colibris for backyard squirrels & grackles=>Scoped
CZ 550 in .375 HH mag with express sights=> Scoped
Muzzleloaders=>Scoped
*Most* ARs/ EBRs I've had in the past => Scoped or ESD'ed

and etc.

I get a kick out of learning about and using optical equipment (scopes, binos, spotters, etc) just almost as much as guns. I think this is primarily due to the fact that I've nearly always had poor eyesight, so it "opens another world" of clarity for me, which is interesting. I did LASIK 13 years ago and was 20/15 right after, but have since declined and wear glasses again. It was still the best money I ever spent in my life, because I was nearly legally blind when I had the LASIK, and couldn't drive or do much of anything without glasses. Now, I can at least drive / function without them.

Heck, if my eyes get bad enough, it may just give me the excuse I need to get an FN-FNX Tactical .45 in FDE, and slap a Trijicon RMR-DI on it (with 12 MOA green triangle). :)
 
Last edited:
There's absolutely no question that optics are more precise than irons. There may well be (I'm sure there is) The Exception That Proves The Rule but it is certainly the exception.

If you want best accuracy under almost any circumstance, optics are better. It may be that 1x is best in some circumstance and 40x in another, but optics will be* more precise than irons of any kind.

As such. I prefer optics and always have them on every gun except my carry gun. I always have. My BB guns when I was a kid had scopes. My deer guns have scopes... everything gets a scope.

Only one has ever failed me so I don't buy the cost of replacement argument. "Target acquisition" arguments are really "user incompetence" arguments. I have taken shots at running deer from distances measured in feet with 5x magnification and had no trouble finding the target. Use appropriate magnification and bring the gun to you instead of you to the gun and you'll have no trouble.


*- See previous exception clause
 
A tough question to answer.
It depends on what kind of optics or irons you mean, and the circumstances.
For fast acquisition or when there's plenty of time to set up the shot?
Dot scopes, low powered fixed or zoom, higher powered ones?
Iron fixed, iron adjustable, peeps, open, ghost ring, globe front, sliding ladder, or something else?
 
If I want to hit my target, I use optics. If I just want the bullet to go in the right general direction, I use iron sights. It's an old eyes thing.
 
g.willikers said:
A tough question to answer.
Click to expand...

I don't think it has be that tough. No condition has to be static. Given a situation, would the optic that works best be better than the "iron" that works best?

The answer is almost always yes.

It might be a different optic if the shot has to be fast instead of having lots of time, or a different one if it's 30 yards instead of 300, but the best of both for each situation, and truly skilled shooters with each, which is better?

It's almost always going to be an optic of some kind.
 
Conversely, I have produced equal or slightly better groups at 100 yards on paper without a scope, with the same rifle, compared to with a scope.

Depends on distance, target size & quality of sights, among other things.
Primarily, a scope allows you to SEE better, which usually also allows you to SHOOT better, but it's not an absolute guarantee.
Denis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top