Scope vs Iron Sights

Properly chosen optics will pretty much ALWAYS be better than even the best iron sights.

IMO irons are for backup/battle uses.


In hunting, a good set of optics would be inherently superior, IMO. The option of having magnification and fine crosshairs will give higher precision, especially at longer ranges. Good optics, you can often acquire sight picture faster. If 'over magnification' Is an issue there are plenty of low power, and even 1x optics, that will work fine, give you a good field of view, and better sight picture than irons.

I don't see any advantage to irons except potential reliability. If you drop your scope, it could break. If you drop your rifle you COULD bend the irons and lose your zero, too.
 
Don't own a rifle (in the market for one though), so I have no experience either way to base an opinion....

But... For those who use both, which do you derive more satisfaction from.. a tight group with iron sights or a tight group with a scope?

(just curious.. not trying to detract from the original question, but I believe this question is in the spirit of the thread)
 
I love my irons. Nothing gives me the satisfaction of using an ancient open sight or even a vintage aperture. When the light is right, a good man with an iron sight can make you wonder why anyone ever wanted optical enhancement. Sometimes off hand shooting or shooting at a moving target is much easier with an iron sight, but part of that may be due to the way older rifles are stocked. Often modern rifles tend to be stocked to suit the type of shooting they are usually used for which is off a bench. That said, too often I have passed on shots with an iron sighted gun in bad light, including dark woods in the middle of the day, when I just couldn't see well enough to be confident.

The real answer to the question for me is too often the rifle I left at home. Some situations are better for iron sights, others without question are better with a telescope. Whether the country you intend to hunt is open or dense gives you some kind of indication of which you should choose but it is not absolute. For now I tend to lean to the irons because the day will come with age and time when my eyes fade to the place where my only choice will be the telescope. Maybe I won't care so much as long as I can still drag myself over the next hill.

On this question of reliability of irons. The ruggedness of the iron sights varies dramatically. Big target apertures, full buckhorns, and the large sporting sights and the folding leaf varieties seem inherently delicate. On many of the original Kentucky rifles and the small military sight on Winchester carbines, which are much harder to see and pick up, I think they were probably made so small not because anyone thought they would be easier to use, but because they are more likely to survive an accident or rough handling. I've never read anything to confirm this theory. It just seems to make sense. If anyone has any information on this idea, it would be interesting to hear from them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Waspinator, I used iron sights for some ten years or so and then mounted a scope on my rifle. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. :) What's been important to me is the result of a shot. I don't guess I've ever thought about any "satisfaction" for the sights, through a whole bunch of decades.

I'm still pretty much happy with irons on a .22 rifle, but for "serious" work I definitely prefer a scope.
 
scope vs iron sights

well I thought I was good im am avid hunter of coyotes so 300,400 yrd shots are common for my 6x284 an my custom built ar, so much for, them my wife bought me a henry 45 colt lever, omg iron sights, haven't shot them in years put up a target a 30 yrds to my surprise I shot a great group 50 yds ha I cant see it !!!! I tried an tried no such luck, now im shooting at 10 in. target,i see it but, I cant put the front sight in the rear sight,by now I am really mad with my self ,so I put it up an my wife who has all the answers ask what is the problem ,an its like I have this beautiful rifle an cant hit anything with it, why not, I cant see , its because of your cataracts hon, its like omg again ha shes right well in the gun case till I can do something about this
so scopes have their place an it would be nice to plink cans at 50 yrds the old fashion way to me anyway
so my advice is do what u have to do scopes can take up ur slack
so enjoy
 
I agree, the exposure thing with a scope is a really serious issue.

Just last week a target saw me looking at it and atacked me!

And I hate to mention all the Caribous and mice that did the same over the years. The wife always asked if it was really worth it after I cam eout of post op.

Yep, them thar iron sights are the way to go, never been attacked when I was using them.
 
cactus deer or stump deer
Click to expand...

Hard to dress or cook and not very tasty either. LOL
I prefer the look of iron sights and used to use them exclusively. If my eyes were still good enough I still would, but I like to shoot at distances over 50 yards and I don't shoot at buildings or cars. It is tough getting old. My eyesight isn't really that bad, but weak enough that irons just don't work for me anymore.
 
And let's always remember, a scope adds at least 10 to 15 minutes of usable shooting light under the canopy at dusk and dawn (at least at longer ranges past 10 yards). Outside of a forest canopy, it doesn't really help you because you run up against legal shooting hours, but under the canopy, it's too dark to shoot with irons in the evening BEFORE legal shooting time runs out; not so with a scope. With a decent scope, I can go all the way to legal shooting time out to maybe 30 or 35 yards. Without scope, I can't see much past 5 or 8 yards (for an ethical shot) at the end of legal shooting time, if at all. Ditto morning, but in reverse.
 
What's all this about "legal shooting time"? As long as it's in season you can hunt as long as you want until you reach your bag limit. I've hunted deer at 6:00 AM through 7 PM (not in one sitting mind you.)
 
Optics or Iron on a rifle? It depends.

I'm in my 50s so yeah, I've got the aging eyes thing. Hence optics are my friend. But I still think that there are a few applications where irons are the way to go. I think it is idiotic to have a fighting rifle not have irons as at least an ever-present "Plan B", since optics are liable to fail in a fight for whatever reason. Busted scope, dead battery, whatever. Irons are better than nothing, and busted optics are just that -- nothing.

I think that a "Guide Gun" would be better off with irons, even better with ghost rings. Ruggedness, reliability and quick acquisition are the name of the game. Pinpoint accuracy much less so.

I think that a survival type of rifle should have irons, too. Be it a bush pilot's take down rifle or something like an AR-7. Ruggedness and reliability are more important than pinpoint accuracy.

I've come to the conclusion that I'd much rather my hunting rifle be dual-sighted. I want it to have sighted in iron sights AND optics. And I want to have the optics on a quick release mount. That way if the optics go south (which HAS happened to me) I've got "Plan B" iron sights ready to use in less than a minute, and the hunt goes on.

cactus deer or stump deer
Click to expand...
Not really all that fond of either of them. Or the rock deer, for that matter. And you better NOT be shooting at people deer. :eek: Oh, and you better not be shooting at the "lowland elk" (cattle), either -- I tell you what, it'll make the rancher REAL happy if you are shooting at the lowland elk... :p
 
Last edited:
When I was hunting I got the high open rings and had iron sights available under it.

It had two uses. Scope got mangled somehow I could still hunt.

If there was a bear encounter I did not have to worry about field of view.

While its not a good bench setup, for hunting it was fine.

We had to skin a moose out in the dark and it was the gun we had at the ready in case a bear came by (dicey with a creek to our back). Hard won moose and neither one of us was inclined to give it up but better sense may have prevailed if we had one come up on us.
 
But... For those who use both, which do you derive more satisfaction from.. a tight group with iron sights or a tight group with a scope?
Click to expand...

Just speaking for myself, but for me satisfaction isn't the point. I'm NEVER satisfied with my groups, be they irons or optics. There's always room for improvement. Also, not wanting to sound Clintonian, but there's also quite a bit of room for interpretation about what "tight" means. What passes for tight with irons might be downright miserable with optics.
 
^^^^^^^^-Yupper- Tight Iron sights--100 or 200 yards,,Tight Scope-500 to 1000 yards. When I was young ( 300 years ago:D ) Iron sights were just till you could afford a scope. Now you could shoot sparrows and gophers from a distance.
 
scopes increase my ability to shoot accurately, irons allow me to get on target sooner.

irons tend to blur and obstruct the target while scopes can fog up in cold weather.

it's 6 of one half dozen of the other. in milsurps I favor iron sights, in hunting rifles I favor scope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top