Red Dot, Reflex, See All Sight, or what for Chiappa Double Badger

[SerenityNetworks]

For awhile I've been wanting an opportunity gun (as in a trunk gun, to carry when scouting, for a day walk in the field, and for backpacking), so I pulled the trigger on the Chiappa Double Badger in .22 WMR / .410. I'd considered similar guns, but the Chiappa is much more packable.

There's much that can be said about the gun, good and bad, but here I want to address the sights.

For the shotgun, the rear peep and front post fiber optic sights are fine. No issues. Yet for the rifle they are too course for consistently accurate shooting. I'm sure the rifle is more accurate than the current sights are now allowing me to shoot. I'd read about this problem in the reviews, but it's worse than I expected. So I'm wondering about options. Using the dovetail provided, would a red dot, reflex, or See All Sight be something I should consider? If so, what are some recommendations?

My goal is to have much more accurate shooting with the rifle, but not loose the fast acquisition I need for a moving target using the shotgun. I don't want to break the bank on an inexpensive trunk/pack gun, but I need something to improve my aim with the rifle. Right now the targets I shoot with the .22 WMR look more like they were created by the .410 with buckshot.

Thanks,
Andrew

 

[entropy]

Right now the targets I shoot with the .22 WMR look more like they were created by the .410 with buckshot.

I doubt that's entirely the gun's fault. Even with crappy or no sights, as long as they aren't moving (on the gun, as in loose,) themselves , the gun should group consistently. As for this,

For the shotgun, the rear peep and front post fiber optic sights are fine.

rifle sights on a shotgun make it useless for flying targets, particularly if your stationary .22 WMR targets are as you describe. If your goal is a much more accurate shooting gun, I recommend a different gun. A 10/22 would be a better choice. Even the Savage 24 (not the current 42), the best of that type of gun, is still a compromise; you will sacrifice some accuracy on the .22 and your wingshooting with the shogun will not be as good as with a bead.

 

[jak67429]

for you specifications I would suggest a holo sight. with a 4min dot. would be large enough for wing shooting and precise enough to hit small game a t 50 yards. Something like a Burris ff3 is small enough that mounting to the dovetail would still be solid enough to hold zero. I have seen alot of people use this sight and mount type on handguns and they work fine.

 

[jak67429]

here is a mount from midway
https://www.brownells.com/optics-mo...y&utm_campaign=itwine&utm_content=452-000-207

 

[SerenityNetworks]

Thank you both. Yes, I know anything I do will involve compromise. The gun itself is a compromise. For example, I'd considered the Savage or even an old Stevens, but weight (about 2 pounds less) and pack-ability (folding to 19") for my uses outweighed the overall quality I would have gained with the other guns.

for your specifications I would suggest a holo sight. with a 4min dot. would be large enough for wing shooting and precise enough to hit small game at 50 yards. Something like a Burris ff3...

Thank you for the suggestion. That's a compromise I can live with. I've got a cheap 4mil holo that I wouldn't want to leave on the gun (it looses zero), but I can put it on just to get an idea of how I might like it. (I could have done it before I posted, but I figured I could ask before doing something that might be a total waste of time.) The FF3 is more than I was hoping to spend, but if it does the trick then I can swing it. I've also got a Bushnell TRS-25 red-dot that I could mount, if you think it's even worth the trouble trying.

I doubt that's entirely the gun's fault. Even with crappy or no sights, as long as they aren't moving (on the gun, as in loose,) themselves , the gun should group consistently.

It's mostly the fault of the gun. At 25 yards the front fiber is so large that it more than covers the 6" diameter colored rings around the bull on my target. It would completely obscure an official 50 yard smallbore rifle target. If I aimed using the 'pumpkin on a post' method then it grouped much better, but still nothing like I can get offhand with my CZ Ultra-Lux or even my old Marlin 795 (both with peeps) because the back peep aperture is so large and the front post is so big. When I'm shooting at game that may be moving, I prefer to place the post over the target rather than just under.

...rifle sights on a shotgun make it useless for flying targets...

I've seen folks with reflex/holo sights and red-dots on shotguns plenty of times at the range shooting clay pigeons, so that response puzzles me. Then again, I've not yet tried it myself and the shooting I witnessed wasn't all that great. Are you thinking red-dots or reflex/holo sights are just too much of a compromise to be effective on a flying target?

Lastly, does anyone have any experience with the See All Sight?

Thanks again,
Andrew

 

[Skylerbone]

I think a ff3 or similar mini sight would make an excellent turkey or small game sight but I agree nothing beats a bead for wing shooting. The why? Likely the uninterrupted sight picture that allows you to judge lead (distance ahead, not heavy metal) on target.

I’m not sure where you go with a hybrid like yours when it comes to sights except to think you’ll need to decide which barrel is your priority and find what works (like new sights) and perhaps an offset mounted dot for the other.

 

[SerenityNetworks]

I think a ff3 or similar mini sight would make an excellent turkey or small game sight...
...I agree nothing beats a bead for wing shooting...
...think you’ll need to decide which barrel is your priority...
...perhaps an offset mounted dot for the other.

Good points. Thank you.

• I'll pull out my cheap holo and see how I like it. If it works then I'll spring for an FF3 or similar.
• There's no debate about a bead sight. But that's not going to happen on this gun. The good news is that shooting something on the wing isn't likely. I might take a shot at a dove I jump in walking through a field, but that's about it. When I was a kid I shot dove and quail with an old Stevens .22/.410 until I got bigger and started shooting a 16ga. With the .410 I missed as many as I hit. I never considered a .410 as a good bird round. Even a 28ga beats it in every way. (However, these days I do like shooting clays with a .410.) The .410 on this gun is most likely going to be used on running rabbits and squirrels. For that game a holo will probably work okay.
• I think you nailed it here; deciding a priority barrel. For the times when I'll be carrying this gun, I believe the rifle will be the most used barrel.
• I never thought of going with an offset. I've never used one, but I can't believe I'd like it. I always considered an offset sight as something for emergency/backup only; never as an intended method for shooting.

Thanks again. With all this input, it's really helped me.

Andrew

 

[Pete D.]

I've seen folks with reflex/holo sights and red-dots on shotguns plenty of times at the range shooting clay pigeons, so that response puzzles me. Then again, I've not yet tried it myself and the shooting I witnessed wasn't all that great. Are you thinking red-dots or reflex/holo sights are just too much of a compromise to be effective on a flying target?

Lastly, does anyone have any experience with the See All Sight?

Interesting. I shoot a lot of Trap. I hunt qrouse and pheasant. My experience is different. I have never seen anyone try wingshooting with a reflex/holo/red dot. That kind of sight puts the focus on the dot in the sight when it should be the bird that you are looking at. There is that old advice that you do not aim a shotgun, you point it.
I suppose, though, that one can get used to anything.
I have a See All sight. It is on my bench right now after having been on two firearms. I have not found a comfortable combination yet. Again, the problem that I forsee with the SeeAll is that you would be looking at the little triangle instead of looking at the bird.