Pointshoot
New member
I prefer irons. Unfortunately, my eyes aren't what they used to be. So for me, I often need to use optics. I usually use as low magnification as can get the job done.
Scope vs Iron Sights
- Thread starter Mosin-Marauder
- Start date
bamaranger
New member
no doubt
You will shoot better, under a wider variety of circumstances, with some type of optic, of that I have no doubt. Proof of that is the near universal use of 'scopes by hunters and the military's use of same as well, albeit a dot or some similar arrangement. I often am at the local WMA check station when the deer come in, and if I can, I note or query about the rifles folks are using. I have not seen anybody come in using exclusively iron sights in a long time.
Up to about age 50 I could do very fair work with a peep, and shot my Garands and several pistol cal carbines very well. But my blessing of very good eyes took a turn about that time, and my iron sight work now is not anything like it was. Even so, in my prime, a scope added many minutes of dawn and dusk shooting, and allowed picking game out of the shadows, far beyond anything I could do with my naked eyes and any type of irons.
You will shoot better, under a wider variety of circumstances, with some type of optic, of that I have no doubt. Proof of that is the near universal use of 'scopes by hunters and the military's use of same as well, albeit a dot or some similar arrangement. I often am at the local WMA check station when the deer come in, and if I can, I note or query about the rifles folks are using. I have not seen anybody come in using exclusively iron sights in a long time.
Up to about age 50 I could do very fair work with a peep, and shot my Garands and several pistol cal carbines very well. But my blessing of very good eyes took a turn about that time, and my iron sight work now is not anything like it was. Even so, in my prime, a scope added many minutes of dawn and dusk shooting, and allowed picking game out of the shadows, far beyond anything I could do with my naked eyes and any type of irons.
If you can hit an 8" (paper plate-sized) brown cardboard disk every shot in the worst light conditions you're likely to encounter when hunting, at the maximum range you're likely to shoot a deer, with whatever sights you intend to use, you're good to go.
I'm a long-time shooter/hunter who finds that scopes are the way to go for me. However, they need to be mounted so I can pick up a rifle, mount it with my eyes closed and be looking through it perfectly every time, regardless of the clothes I may be wearing for hunting, etc.
The worst system a person can use is a scope with see-through mounts. They place the primary (scope) sights too high to be effective.
I'm a long-time shooter/hunter who finds that scopes are the way to go for me. However, they need to be mounted so I can pick up a rifle, mount it with my eyes closed and be looking through it perfectly every time, regardless of the clothes I may be wearing for hunting, etc.
The worst system a person can use is a scope with see-through mounts. They place the primary (scope) sights too high to be effective.
There is no scope "vs" irons, its only scope "with" irons. Its not one against the other!
Below is from shooters eye perspective:
When using iron sights, the eye has three points of focus: back sight, front sight, target.
Since shooters eye can not focus on three focal points at same time, proper way is to focus on front sight (to see clear), while the other two are blur. Thus, the errors occurs.
When using peep sights - there are two points of focus, front sight and target, because we peep, or look through the back sight, which is better design, providing less chances for optical errors, due to eye focus.
Finally:
When looking through the scope, it is all two dimensional picture, and eye focuses only on that picture, without blurred areas during aiming. Thus the eye error is eliminated.
So, theoretically - the scope has almost all the advantages, in minimizing the eye error, plus optional better range estimate via various reticule features.
The scope has, however following practical disadvantages:
Using in heavy rain, heavy snow and blizzard conditions, and liability to mechanical failures with hard handling, accidental hitting in near by objects, car run overs if that happens, etc you name it
Secondly, on close ranges, when quick acquisition of moving target is required, the iron sights are way to go.
So, for any kind of hunting rifle, in my view - it has to be equipped with iron sights, scope and quick release mounts.
While many hunting rifles today do not have iron sights, still I can not find a single reason why hunting rifle should not / could not have both.
Another part is stock - which will define primary and secondary sighting / aiming system.
The shape of stock must enable shooter to naturally align the eye with sighting system (either scope or irons).
Logically, if the eye is naturally aligned with scope, it will not be naturally aligned with iron sights.
So, obviously - one system will be the main target acquisition system while the other will be back up.
Or, possibly adjustable stock to be considered.
One example:
Some newer rifles are equipped with battue mechanical sights. This sights are designed for quick acquisition of targets at close ranges.
I would say in that kind of rifle the mechanical sights would be primary, and scope would be the secondary aiming system.
SO, practically in this example, the stock will have to enable shooters eye to be naturally aligned with mechanical sighs, and when aiming through the scope, the neck will be stretched a bit.
Considerations for: Close range, medium range, long range, moving targets, steady targets, bush, plane, etc...
The main purpose of the rifle will have to be considered when choosing the type of stock- - as this will determine the primary sighting system depending of condition and type of hunt for which the rifle is intended, but in any case - both type of sights to be fitted!
Below is from shooters eye perspective:
When using iron sights, the eye has three points of focus: back sight, front sight, target.
Since shooters eye can not focus on three focal points at same time, proper way is to focus on front sight (to see clear), while the other two are blur. Thus, the errors occurs.
When using peep sights - there are two points of focus, front sight and target, because we peep, or look through the back sight, which is better design, providing less chances for optical errors, due to eye focus.
Finally:
When looking through the scope, it is all two dimensional picture, and eye focuses only on that picture, without blurred areas during aiming. Thus the eye error is eliminated.
So, theoretically - the scope has almost all the advantages, in minimizing the eye error, plus optional better range estimate via various reticule features.
The scope has, however following practical disadvantages:
Using in heavy rain, heavy snow and blizzard conditions, and liability to mechanical failures with hard handling, accidental hitting in near by objects, car run overs if that happens, etc you name it
Secondly, on close ranges, when quick acquisition of moving target is required, the iron sights are way to go.
So, for any kind of hunting rifle, in my view - it has to be equipped with iron sights, scope and quick release mounts.
While many hunting rifles today do not have iron sights, still I can not find a single reason why hunting rifle should not / could not have both.
Another part is stock - which will define primary and secondary sighting / aiming system.
The shape of stock must enable shooter to naturally align the eye with sighting system (either scope or irons).
Logically, if the eye is naturally aligned with scope, it will not be naturally aligned with iron sights.
So, obviously - one system will be the main target acquisition system while the other will be back up.
Or, possibly adjustable stock to be considered.
One example:
Some newer rifles are equipped with battue mechanical sights. This sights are designed for quick acquisition of targets at close ranges.
I would say in that kind of rifle the mechanical sights would be primary, and scope would be the secondary aiming system.
SO, practically in this example, the stock will have to enable shooters eye to be naturally aligned with mechanical sighs, and when aiming through the scope, the neck will be stretched a bit.
Considerations for: Close range, medium range, long range, moving targets, steady targets, bush, plane, etc...
The main purpose of the rifle will have to be considered when choosing the type of stock- - as this will determine the primary sighting system depending of condition and type of hunt for which the rifle is intended, but in any case - both type of sights to be fitted!
Last edited:
I use scopes for most of my hunting,
Irons for most of my target shooting.
I've shot irons and scopes in 1000 yard matches, my best scores were with irons (Super Match M1A).
I shot CMP vintage sniper matches using an M1903A4 w/2.5 X Weaver Scope at 300 & 600 yards.
I was playing with my M1903A3 with its iron sights and found I can shoot it better on the same targets & ranges then my A4
Each has their places, I refuse to say one is better then the other except to say, I found irons are better for teaching marksmanship fundamentals.
Irons for most of my target shooting.
I've shot irons and scopes in 1000 yard matches, my best scores were with irons (Super Match M1A).
I shot CMP vintage sniper matches using an M1903A4 w/2.5 X Weaver Scope at 300 & 600 yards.
I was playing with my M1903A3 with its iron sights and found I can shoot it better on the same targets & ranges then my A4
Each has their places, I refuse to say one is better then the other except to say, I found irons are better for teaching marksmanship fundamentals.
for me , i started shooting on irons in a 22LR, that was an old hex barrel rifle with a feed chamber. age 5
since then the majority of my rifles have irons, so I train on irons then progress to attaching optics. it takes me about a 1 year-2 years to train on irons, then i progress to training in the optics.
from my experience i can state that irons allow me a great field of view and quick acquisition, but im slower to center the target. on a scope i reduce my field of view but, i then increase the precision and time to acquire and accurately fire at a target with minimized groups
so its a typical system of pros and cons, what you get in one area is reduced in another
since then the majority of my rifles have irons, so I train on irons then progress to attaching optics. it takes me about a 1 year-2 years to train on irons, then i progress to training in the optics.
from my experience i can state that irons allow me a great field of view and quick acquisition, but im slower to center the target. on a scope i reduce my field of view but, i then increase the precision and time to acquire and accurately fire at a target with minimized groups
so its a typical system of pros and cons, what you get in one area is reduced in another
Gunplummer
New member
Lot of good, different answers and reasons for them. I can relate to the age eyesight thing. I mostly hunt now with my rifles and I have about 2/3 of them scoped. In PA, the antler point restrictions pretty much makes me grab something with a scope. I have a few 99 Savages, and I still shoot them better without a scope. The design of the gun just does not make a scoped 99 "Fit" me for accurate shooting. This post was about bolt guns and I always had trouble with a good fit on some surplus guns. The .303 British comes to mind as a very uncomfortable gun to shoot with open sights. The stock 98 Mauser is nothing to brag about either. Judging by the posts on this thread, a lot of you guys are up there in age. Remember when scopes could not be trusted to hunt with? Most of the early scopes were so bad that you were better off without one. A lot of them fogged up on damp days, let alone on freezing days. I would have to say that the cheapest scope now is more reliable than the most expensive scope made in the early 60's. The post about the jacked up see through rings made me laugh. I remember my brother-in-law cutting a ring in his forehead at the range one day when trying his out.
8MM Mauser
New member
I agree with the jist of this post.
I have a Simmons scope on my Mauser sporter and it's been rock-solid dependable. The scope itself is accurate and robust and not expensive at all!
That said. For some odd reason I do wish the gun had irons too; just in case.
Jack O'Conner
New member
I also was a big fan of good iron sights until my 30's. I found it difficult to get past the fuzzy sight picture. A scope is an easy cure for that.
Jack
Jack
I have known of a few conditions that iron sights are superior to optics. First of all Quick and close I want iron sights on a lever action. I met a guy that just started deer hunting in Northern Michigan. He bought him self a nice Marlin. He must of wanted all the bells and wishes on it. He put a see through scope mount with a 3-9 on it. I saw him when a buck was running at him across a trail it jumped over him as he tried to shoot he didn't have a chance to hit him with that setup. Boy was he mad. I have had a buck run past me when I had a 2-7 on my bolt that scope gave me nothing but hair in it. Now my BLR has a 1-4 scope and it's like looking out a window. I set it on 1 and it's ready for a quick close shot. If I need more power 4 power is all I need.
I like both, not at the same time however. If I had to choose one to be better, it would be optics, they are a finer adjustment, magnified and less room for error... IF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE THEM.
I think everyone should learn to shoot on irons then try optics. I think it helps rather than hinders in the long run. I shot iron site competitions when I was a kid, now most of my rifles are optics.... much to my surprise however messing around last summer I was able to shoot a cherry tomato (about the size of a quarter) off a fence post with a .22lr iron sight rifle at about 75 yards and still amazed myself as I could barely see the thing.
Big issue I see with a lot of hunters and beginner shooters when using scopes is they buy guns from factory or used with scopes, and are not set up for their eye relief, if that isn't bad enough... a lot of even very experienced shooters do not understand parallax. Watch any trained shooter behind a scope and you will see the head shake or nod before he gets settled in, he is checking parallax. Some scopes are adjustable, others specially the cheap ones that are common with hunters, are not.
I think everyone should learn to shoot on irons then try optics. I think it helps rather than hinders in the long run. I shot iron site competitions when I was a kid, now most of my rifles are optics.... much to my surprise however messing around last summer I was able to shoot a cherry tomato (about the size of a quarter) off a fence post with a .22lr iron sight rifle at about 75 yards and still amazed myself as I could barely see the thing.
Big issue I see with a lot of hunters and beginner shooters when using scopes is they buy guns from factory or used with scopes, and are not set up for their eye relief, if that isn't bad enough... a lot of even very experienced shooters do not understand parallax. Watch any trained shooter behind a scope and you will see the head shake or nod before he gets settled in, he is checking parallax. Some scopes are adjustable, others specially the cheap ones that are common with hunters, are not.
Josh Smith
Moderator
Mosin,
It depends.
My precision .22 heavy-barrel "squirrel sniper" wears optics only. I also shoot 'em out past 100 yards with .22LR.
The Mosin wears irons for the most part, and I use it on coyotes when needed out to 200 yards. If I have to shoot further and know in advance, I do put a low-powered scout scope and mount on it. This is more for identification purposes.
All rimfire rifles I've had optics on previous to this one have had backup irons, and I like the concept for hunting. I did this on my slug guns as well.
Any future modern rifles I get will have irons as well as optics, and I'm looking into using a PU mount on them just because it gives such a good view of the irons. I'm a lefty, though, so bolt actions will be sort of tough to set up with the PU mount.
The exception is a varminter I want to build. There are concepts that intrigue me and I therefore want to explore them with a precision varminter.
Regards,
Josh
It depends.
My precision .22 heavy-barrel "squirrel sniper" wears optics only. I also shoot 'em out past 100 yards with .22LR.
The Mosin wears irons for the most part, and I use it on coyotes when needed out to 200 yards. If I have to shoot further and know in advance, I do put a low-powered scout scope and mount on it. This is more for identification purposes.
All rimfire rifles I've had optics on previous to this one have had backup irons, and I like the concept for hunting. I did this on my slug guns as well.
Any future modern rifles I get will have irons as well as optics, and I'm looking into using a PU mount on them just because it gives such a good view of the irons. I'm a lefty, though, so bolt actions will be sort of tough to set up with the PU mount.
The exception is a varminter I want to build. There are concepts that intrigue me and I therefore want to explore them with a precision varminter.
Regards,
Josh
All rimfire rifles I've had optics on previous to this one have had backup irons, and I like the concept for hunting.
Given the choice between two CZ 452s quite a while back, this is what drove me to the lighter-barrelled model over the bull-barrelled varminter. The fact that I was back to the shop not long afterwards to put a scope on it, and that every feral bunny I ever shot was shot through the scope, was irrelevant.
In the end I lost nothing - was shooting at a 25yd target one day (for fun) and a small bug landed on it. I shot at the bug. It was a hit, which meant I didn't really need the heavy barrel, although I maintain to this day that as good as the 452s have always been, whoever put that particular rifle together in the factory was a skilled employee having one of their better days. It could have been different.
Given the choice between two CZ 452s quite a while back, this is what drove me to the lighter-barrelled model over the bull-barrelled varminter. The fact that I was back to the shop not long afterwards to put a scope on it, and that every feral bunny I ever shot was shot through the scope, was irrelevant.
In the end I lost nothing - was shooting at a 25yd target one day (for fun) and a small bug landed on it. I shot at the bug. It was a hit, which meant I didn't really need the heavy barrel, although I maintain to this day that as good as the 452s have always been, whoever put that particular rifle together in the factory was a skilled employee having one of their better days. It could have been different.
When I went hunting deer for the first time, it was during a snowstorm and large puffy flakes were falling when I saw a huge buck come out into an old road. I only had iron sights on my Savage 110 (that I bought that year).
Every time I tried to take a bead on the deer, a big flake would fall on either the front or rear sight. Finally, when I did take a shot and hit the deer, it wasn't a killing shot and it got away.
Years later, I was tracking a deer in a light snowstorm, carrying my Rem 1100, 12 gauge. As I tracked carefully, the deer stood up under a fir tree, about 30 yards away. I fired and the deer disappeared. I waited for a minute or two, then went to see what happened. The slug buried itself in the 10" tree trunk and the deer took off so fast it was lost in the softwoods before it could be seen again. It was fairly dark in the woods and the tree trunk blended with the deer color, so I never saw it. I always thought a scope would have made the difference, if I could have kept it clear enough.
These days, I don't go out in bad weather and if it turns bad when I'm out there, it's time to go home.
Every time I tried to take a bead on the deer, a big flake would fall on either the front or rear sight. Finally, when I did take a shot and hit the deer, it wasn't a killing shot and it got away.
Years later, I was tracking a deer in a light snowstorm, carrying my Rem 1100, 12 gauge. As I tracked carefully, the deer stood up under a fir tree, about 30 yards away. I fired and the deer disappeared. I waited for a minute or two, then went to see what happened. The slug buried itself in the 10" tree trunk and the deer took off so fast it was lost in the softwoods before it could be seen again. It was fairly dark in the woods and the tree trunk blended with the deer color, so I never saw it. I always thought a scope would have made the difference, if I could have kept it clear enough.
These days, I don't go out in bad weather and if it turns bad when I'm out there, it's time to go home.
They call it hunting and fishing.... not shooting and catching, that's what I was always told growing up.
I don't trophy hunt... nor do I really NEED the meat from my kills. I love the meat don't get me wrong but I can afford to live with out it. I hunt for pure love of the sport and most importantly fun. If I feel like I do not have a good shot, I do not take it. Iron's are more fun to me... granted I have taken more deer with a scoped rifle sure. However I have whacked my fair share of tree's and branch's with scoped rifles as well, if they are closer than your focal plane sometimes you just will not see them.
I don't find scopes or irons are any easier hunting deer or small game, unless shooting long distances, however each comes with their own set of issues.
I don't trophy hunt... nor do I really NEED the meat from my kills. I love the meat don't get me wrong but I can afford to live with out it. I hunt for pure love of the sport and most importantly fun. If I feel like I do not have a good shot, I do not take it. Iron's are more fun to me... granted I have taken more deer with a scoped rifle sure. However I have whacked my fair share of tree's and branch's with scoped rifles as well, if they are closer than your focal plane sometimes you just will not see them.
I don't find scopes or irons are any easier hunting deer or small game, unless shooting long distances, however each comes with their own set of issues.
When young with 20/20 vision iron was it. Got older and sights got "fuzzy", went with receiver/peep sights. Got even older, surgery for detached retinas and its optics or stay home and stare at the TV. Live long enough and you will see the change.
I had given up shooting handguns until a Ruger MKII with a Millet red dot sight got me shooting them again.
You have to adapt.
Gary
I had given up shooting handguns until a Ruger MKII with a Millet red dot sight got me shooting them again.
You have to adapt.
Gary
Josh Smith
Moderator
Hello,
I thought more about this.
For me, it's also largely a question of aesthetics and ergonomics.
There was a time in my life when I carried a 9mm "hi-cap", drove hotrods, and was obsessed with precision from any firearm I had.
These days, I'm more about what feels right. I drive a 2000 Chevy Blazer because I love Blazers. Sure, it has a little something extra under the hood, but not as tricked out as I would have done it 10 years back.
I carry a 1911 in .45acp. I did a LOT of hand fitting to it so that it's very low in my hand and fits like a glove. Though I don't subscribe to point shooting, I can point shoot with this pistol if I need to.
My rifles all wear irons except for the precision .22LR. It's nothing but preference. There's a certain "feel" to open irons that I just don't have with optics. If I go to shoot a critter, for example, I'm not viewing it through a 'window' of any sort.
The only time the irons give way to optics, for me, now, is when ethics come into play. A small target at long range calls for optics. Squirrels at 100 yards need optics, in my opinion, as well as excellent rang estimation and an easily expanding bullet. (I use D Rock's tool.)
Coyotes beyond 150 or 200 yards need a low-powered 'scope for me to identify correctly. I don't want to take out someone's pet, even if it does run with coyotes now-and-again, or even once.
A 7.62x54r SST driven fast doesn't leave much to be desired in terms of ethics if the coyote is hit anywhere semi-critical. It doesn't leave much of the pelt, either, but that's what the 'scoped .22 and head shots are for. I've not hunted fur in years, though, and don't really plan to. It's just nuisance critter control.
Use enough gun and make sure you can hit with acceptable accuracy (close to your rifle's mechanical precision as you can get) with irons, and enjoy the irons.
You know, thinking about it, I don't think I've been in a big-game hunting situation in my life where I used a 'scope, where irons would not have worked just as well...
Regards,
Josh
I thought more about this.
For me, it's also largely a question of aesthetics and ergonomics.
There was a time in my life when I carried a 9mm "hi-cap", drove hotrods, and was obsessed with precision from any firearm I had.
These days, I'm more about what feels right. I drive a 2000 Chevy Blazer because I love Blazers. Sure, it has a little something extra under the hood, but not as tricked out as I would have done it 10 years back.
I carry a 1911 in .45acp. I did a LOT of hand fitting to it so that it's very low in my hand and fits like a glove. Though I don't subscribe to point shooting, I can point shoot with this pistol if I need to.
My rifles all wear irons except for the precision .22LR. It's nothing but preference. There's a certain "feel" to open irons that I just don't have with optics. If I go to shoot a critter, for example, I'm not viewing it through a 'window' of any sort.
The only time the irons give way to optics, for me, now, is when ethics come into play. A small target at long range calls for optics. Squirrels at 100 yards need optics, in my opinion, as well as excellent rang estimation and an easily expanding bullet. (I use D Rock's tool.)
Coyotes beyond 150 or 200 yards need a low-powered 'scope for me to identify correctly. I don't want to take out someone's pet, even if it does run with coyotes now-and-again, or even once.
A 7.62x54r SST driven fast doesn't leave much to be desired in terms of ethics if the coyote is hit anywhere semi-critical. It doesn't leave much of the pelt, either, but that's what the 'scoped .22 and head shots are for. I've not hunted fur in years, though, and don't really plan to. It's just nuisance critter control.
Use enough gun and make sure you can hit with acceptable accuracy (close to your rifle's mechanical precision as you can get) with irons, and enjoy the irons.
You know, thinking about it, I don't think I've been in a big-game hunting situation in my life where I used a 'scope, where irons would not have worked just as well...
Regards,
Josh