Scope with irons?

[Rustle in the Bushes]

Im currently pondering a hunting/general purpose rifle. Im wondering if throwing a scope on top of irons messes with the scope at all? ex. for the cz 550 FS it has irons as well as a scope mount, while the sako A7 Im looking at does not.

Is it true that having irons means that the scope cannot be fitted as low as possible to the barrel?

 

[jmr40]

Is it true that having irons means that the scope cannot be fitted as low as possible to the barrel?

That depends on the rifle, scope and mounts. I've never had an issue, but on some rifles it is impractical unless you remove the rear sight. If you were to buy a rifle with irons, a little more thought might need to be put into which scope and mounts you choose.

FWIW, I wouldn't worry about irons. Pick your scope wisely and they will never be needed. I've actually seen more iron sights fail in the field than "quality" scopes. Cheap scopes do sometimes fail. A quality variable with no more than 2X or 3X on the low end is faster on target for quick snap shots than irons would be anyway. Even at very close ranges.

 

[Regolith]

Yes, it can cause some interference depending on the design of the scope and/or the rear sight. Personally, I think the redundancy is worth it, at least for a hunting rifle. For a bench rifle I would rather have only one or the other.

 

[Doyle]

If your rifle does have room to have both irons and a scope, you can do what I do and use Leupold QR base and rings. I sighted the irons in at 75 yds before puting the scope on. Now, if I'm in the woods and I ever bugger up my scope to where I can't trust it, I can just pop it off and continue the hunt using the irons.

 

[Picher]

I've seen scope position severely compromised, or just plain wrong by trying to maintain fixed sights on a rifle. See through mounts, side mounts, high mounts all contribute to an inferior hunting rifle situation.

My best advice: A scope is the best sighting system you can put on a rifle. Everything else should be the compromised system. Mount a scope properly with detachable mounts, lining up perfectly when the rifle is mounted with the eyes closed. If you want to hunt in bad conditions when scopes are ineffective, get another rifle to use with a sighting system that is better in those conditions and leave the scoped rifle home.

If you fear that your scope might be damaged, putting your rifle out of action, buy a cheap scope/rings to serve as a spare on a major hunt. They don't take so much room that it's impossible to have one available. Another good bet when on a multi-day hunt: a Bushnell Mini Red Dot, already sighted in. A person could carry one in their pack and not even be aware of the weight or bulk.

 

[mehavey]

Is it true that having irons means that the scope cannot be fitted as low as possible to the barrel?

Leave the iron sights on. You will have no problems at all as the scope cannot resolve (i.e., you will never see) the sights sitting right in front of it.

 

[Art Eatman]

I'll take luck over skill, any day: For some forty years my hunting rifles had scopes, no irons. I never, ever, had any problem. Wasn't something I even worried about. Just normal halfway-cautious in my handling of my rifles.

When I had a rifle bounce from the cab-roof of my pickup on a really rough jeep trail and the zero was unaffected (Weaver mounts, Leupold scope), I figured there really wasn't anything about which to worry...

 

[Picher]

I generally agree with what Art said about only scopes on rifles. The exception is when a guy has a cheap or older scope and goes out in a cold hard rain. My son-in-law went out in such conditions and his scope fogged badly and was ruined. I put it in a basin filled with hot water and it looked like a submarine in a crash dive!!! Bubbles came out from several places.

Being a gunsmith of sorts, I had a spare B&L Balvar 8B that was still good, but the image was a bit dark. I mounted it, but it didn't zero because his Rem 742 barrel was installed crooked in the receiver. The one-piece base needed to be cut into two, then have new holes drilled, so the scope would point closer to where the barrel is looking. It now works fine and he's a happy hunter, but he learned a bit about what can happen to cheap scopes under adverse conditions.

 

[taylorce1]

I've been able to maintain sights on my .35 Whelen.

These are Leupold Weaver bases and PRW rings. I'll go with low QRW rings next as the scope is a 3.5-10x40 and I've got a 2.5-8X36 that I'm going to put in this rifle. I just think 3.5-10 is too much for the Whelen.

 

[BigMikey76]

Is it true that having irons means that the scope cannot be fitted as low as possible to the barrel?

That depends largely on the placement of the rear sight and the dimensions of the scope. I have both Irons and a scope on my .22, and it fits great. The rear sight sits beneath the scope just behind the point where the scope gets wider (I am sure ther is a term for that, I just don't know it.) No interference, and the scope really couldn't sit much lower.