Why so few hunting rifles with sights?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have no desire to have iron sights on a bolt action rifle, and as was mentioned above, if you make the stock comb low enough to actually see iron sights, then a definitely won’t buy it because it will be all wrong for the height of the scope I’m going to put on it.

Iron sighted hunting rifle = lever action
 
There are some with out "iron" sights.
But I just looked at the Marlin web sight......plenty Marlins with iron-sights.
Iron sights are not going the way of the Buffalo. I find no problem. JMO.
 
I must respectfully disagree with your first premise. Having grown up with firearms and hunters I do not know a single one that demanded manufacturers remove them. They removed them because it was cheaper to manufacture a rifle without them.


I've never known anyone to say they want to buy a rifle with no sights or way to aim it when they leave the store.

I dont like, but can understand, them not including irons.... but to not drill & tap for a set of irons is a diservice, imo, all rifles should be able to use either irons or optics.
 
I’ve noticed lately that even the high end European air rifles that generally have good iron sights are too straight stocked to use them
:(
 
Last edited:
I've never known anyone to say they want to buy a rifle with no sights or way to aim it when they leave the store.

I dont like, but can understand, them not including irons.... but to not drill & tap for a set of irons is a diservice, imo, all rifles should be able to use either irons or optics.
I don’t want irons on a bolt rifle. Have no use for them whatsoever. I don’t even put BUIS on AR15s having stopped that more than 10 years ago.

so I’d prefer not to pay for drilling and tapping holes Or extra parts I don’t need
 
I don’t want irons on a bolt rifle. Have no use for them whatsoever. I don’t even put BUIS on AR15s having stopped that more than 10 years ago.

so I’d prefer not to pay for drilling and tapping holes Or extra parts I don’t need

I didn't say anything about extra parts.

I don't really much use for irons on any rifle either. I've always scoped rifles for the last 35 yrs (... except I haven't & might not scope my newish 357 lever or Ruger PCC)


However, I will gladly pay an extra $1 for the 4 holes to be drilled and tapped which should allow the mfg to consider it a profit over the 25 cents to do it.

I also have zero pragmatic use for ambi controls... but I'll gladly pay the extra cpl bucks for them.

I think, maybe mistakenly, that most people have zero pragmatic use for ambi controls but it seems most here would prefer them.

It seems to me with as many times this topic has come up, & with some noted examples in this thread, the iron sightless mfgrs are missing opportunities to sell rifles costing several hundred dollars because thier competition can have an iron sight.
 
I've never known anyone to say they want to buy a rifle with no sights or way to aim it when they leave the store.

I won’t buy a bolt action rifle with iron sights.

For several reasons:

As espoused in this thread, irons on a bolt action rifle either mean the stock drop at comb is going to be too low for proper cheek weld with a scope, OR - the irons really won’t be useful because the stock is dropped for a scope, and not low enough for proper use of the irons. Can’t have both.

Added cost of parts and machining for something I find to bring negative value to the rifle.

There is never a time I wish my bolt guns had irons - but alternatively, there have been many times in the past I have REMOVED irons to solve problems to make a rifle more useful.

The claim “there are some environments in which irons are more useful than a scope” is a complete fallacy. Lacking experience and lacking practice with a rifle, or poor choice in optics are never justifiable reasoning for claiming irons superior to optics. History has proven there simply is no environ or application in which irons truly outshine optics, whether shooting short range in close cover or otherwise.

I’ve never felt a need to shoot my firearms in a store parking lot, so I’m not motivated by a need to be able to sight the rifle as soon as I leave the store. I’m content to bring the rifle home, properly install the optic, and be ready to sight and shoot the rifle a few hours later, rather than buying an iron sight model just to be able to sight and fire as soon as I breech the threshold of the store...
 
i'm a lefty, so i always go for ambi controls. hard to get that in a bolt gun though.
by extra parts i just meant the sights themselves

True... & I understood you to be referencing the sights.

Different ppl like different things... I'm not being argumentative as I see your point and I'm typically an ' I dont want to pay for something I don't need ' type of guy.

However, as I said, it just seems to me that given the # of times this comes up and going from memory the responses, it seems they are missing opportunity to sell more rifles because they don't spend a trivial amount to drill and tap. They are almost handing business to their competitors.

The kicker is that I'm interested in a Ruger Ranch... I'm bummed irons are not easily possible buy I have no intention to shoot it woth out a scope.

It's beyond me though as market analysis not my wheel house. It seemed there was a time when if you didn't have at least 6 cup holders in your sub compact car you were behind the curve.
 
I like the *idea* of iron sights. However, in practice... with the actual, mediocre to poor visibility of iron sights past, say, 150 yards (I’m being optimistic here, I don’t feel too comfortable past 100, but there are undoubtedly better shooters than me who can use them farther out), it makes sense to enjoy the irons on the rifles they were historically prevalent on, like old ones and lever actions. Most people aren’t trying to shoot a 30-30 past that range, still less a 38-40 or what have you. Any modern bolt action is probably going to be chambered in something that can reach out to 250-350 yards (for hunting, undoubtedly much farther for paper), so why not equip them with optics to allow them to realize that potential?
 
But if you are serious about hitting your target these days (at any range), you are using optics.
I can't agree with that in my case and the cases of many others that I know.

I specifically choose to use iron sights any chance that it is responsible. I've never taken either a mule deer or elk with a scope and used two rounds only one time. Part of the hunting for me is getting it right with what I've got.

Conversely, I have personally seen a saddening number of *hunters* abuse the living hell out of animals for taking shots they never should have taken due to their guns being over-opticed and over calibered.... usually due to the optical crutch.

And to stay ahead of the standard "... wait till you're my age...." stuff. 60's in my rear view and I still use iron and actively work at my vision every day.

Todd.
 
Last edited:
oh i agree there's a market for them. it's just declining. 100 years from now when we are using star wars style energy weapons, there will still be folks from the old cooper/gunsite/scout school that will want iron sights and a ching sling on them. nothing wrong with that. people are free to want what want and have different opinions about what works best

tbh, i always wanted a pacific rifle co zephr
 
Last edited:
.... people are free to want what want and have different opinions about what works best
Ditto. :thumbup:

Except.....when those people are few in number manufacturers aren't going to produce what they want, so they're reduced to buying what's available on the used market for whatever the top dollar will bring.
 
I must respectfully disagree with your first premise. Having grown up with firearms and hunters I do not know a single one that demanded manufacturers remove them. They removed them because it was cheaper to manufacture a rifle without them.

Well, maybe I did. If (if I do, not always) I am scoping a rifle permanently, no QR rings, which is the case with most folks scoping a rifle, why would I demand it have iron sights. I never wrote anyone a letter asking them to be removed of course but my preference would be for a permanently scoped rifle, to not have superfluous irons on it and I am sure the market picked up on that by customer purchase decisions. It probably did save some money in both the sights and the work needed to machine attaching points and install them, but then, some such rifles come with scopes and or rings, in some cases bore sighted. Certainly a rifle is sleeker looking without irons sights and no point in them as an evolutionary relic.
 
I don't keep a scope on either of my 550 FS guns these days. They are actually very accurate with the iron sights, and I'm fortunate enough to be able to see them pretty clearly when wearing 1.50 reading glasses, which also give me pretty good distance vision. One of these days I'll be forced to leave a scope on them, though...

View attachment 981428

Ummm, purty! We have similar tastes:

CZ527FS.jpg

BTW, I started out with a scope on this 527 and then took it off in favor of iron sights (NEGC peep and gold-faced front blade.) Ideally, I would replace the fixed open leaf with a dovetail blank, but the sight line is sufficiently higher with the peep not to be an issue. I also went the same route with my Ruger 77/44:

Ruger7744.jpg

On both rifles, irons were good enough for their intended uses, and I preferred the handling without a scope. I've got old guy eyesight, but I can still use aperture sights.

Full disclosure: most of my non-milsurp/antique rifles wear scopes and these two are outliers.
 
Last edited:
With the plethora of good 1-X (4,6,8) scopes available today, there really is no reason to mount iron sights on new rifles anymore, except for nostalgia. (and as noted below.) Even the levers. Unlike taliv, I do put BUIS on my AR's but that's because the main optic uses 2032's and I do not trust 2032 batteries fully. Even without them, for most ranges I'd use an AR pistol for, the tube itself is small enough to function as a big peep. It works for minute of goblin out to 50, as far as I've tested it so far.

I used to collect milsurps, Mosins mostly, and still have a few. They have stocks designed for iron sights, and indeed, the few scope sighted milsurps, and M1A's, I've fired either jarred the jaw, or had a lace-on pad. (Which only looks good on an M1C, D, or M21, or the civilian copy of the M21.)

The scope only 'trend' didn't happen overnight; Some gun writers in the 60's started making 'streamlined' hunting rifles, and with Conetrol rings and the Rosewood grip and forcaps, they had a "smart" look about them. Somewhere along the line, they discovered that the high rollover Monte Carlo they thought was necessary wasn't when they reduced the drop to little or nothing. Ideally, a rifle that is set up for a scope should have some drop, to keep the scope height above the bore axis as low as comfortably possible. The "package" bolt rifles sold enmasse these days tend to have flat combs, more like a good Trap gun, with no drop, and very high mounts. Such guns can be shot well, but they don't make it easier to do so. They tend to benefit the gun club "benchrest" hunter, the guy who shoots many rounds, often out of necessity, to zero. They make it easy to sit at a bench with the gun in a Caldwell Lead sled, or on bags, and not get a shiner or scope ring from their rifle, because their neck is straight up, like some trapshooters prefer. Nothing wrong with that, except few bring a bench to the field, and trying to hold the neck like that, particularly in the prone position for any length of time is tiresome and not conductive to accuracy. Back in my prairie dogging days, I couldn't imagine shooting prone with the Axis I have today for extended periods of time, I'd get a permanent crick in my neck!

The one type of rifle that I know must have good iron sights are African dangerous game rifles. A good solid set of iron sights are often required by PH's, they may make you take your scope off before going in the bush for the lion you wounded by taking too far a shot with that scope. Not many PH's sport scopes on their Dangerous game rifles. Savanna rifles for all the various 'boks' and gazelles? Sure. But not for The Big 5.
 
History has proven there simply is no environ or application in which irons truly outshine optics, whether shooting short range in close cover or otherwise.

I have one. My deer hunting during most of my formative years was done in front of dogs in the swamps of South Louisiana. The deer are moving, especially with the dogs hot on their heels. Distances were close and a quick pointing lever action with iron sights, or even a shotgun, was the tool of choice back then.

Having said that, if I was still hunting with dogs today I'd probably opt for a red dot or a 1-4 or even 1-6. My eyes ain't what they used to be, but neither are optics. The field of view and optical quality are worlds apart from the old Bushnells and Weavers of my youth.
 
@Nature Boy - as mentioned, history has proven LPVO’s and red dots superior to irons for shots on moving targets at close range and tight cover.

Lots of hold-outs still swear by outmoded tactics and tools, but the relative success of limited options of the past doesn’t negate the reality better options exist today.
 
I won’t buy a bolt action rifle with iron sights.

For several reasons:

As espoused in this thread, irons on a bolt action rifle either mean the stock drop at comb is going to be too low for proper cheek weld with a scope, OR - the irons really won’t be useful because the stock is dropped for a scope, and not low enough for proper use of the irons. Can’t have both.

Added cost of parts and machining for something I find to bring negative value to the rifle.

There is never a time I wish my bolt guns had irons - but alternatively, there have been many times in the past I have REMOVED irons to solve problems to make a rifle more useful.

The claim “there are some environments in which irons are more useful than a scope” is a complete fallacy. Lacking experience and lacking practice with a rifle, or poor choice in optics are never justifiable reasoning for claiming irons superior to optics. History has proven there simply is no environ or application in which irons truly outshine optics, whether shooting short range in close cover or otherwise.

I’ve never felt a need to shoot my firearms in a store parking lot, so I’m not motivated by a need to be able to sight the rifle as soon as I leave the store. I’m content to bring the rifle home, properly install the optic, and be ready to sight and shoot the rifle a few hours later, rather than buying an iron sight model just to be able to sight and fire as soon as I breech the threshold of the store...


I generally agree with you but it's not absolutes; never is. Up till 2 yrs ago I never own a rifle I didn't scope and I've never had a scope in 35+ yrs completely fail... even cheap scopes... that would require me to need back up irons.

Having said that, it's not about the to need to shoot it the parking lot as soon as a breeching the store door. While admittedly, that's a colorful counter point, No, that doesn't play into it.

Id like to shoot the thing before developing it. Sure, I have a plan for it when I buy it but sometimes that plan changes after shooting it some.

For example, one 10/22 I like shooting a little farther out and is a favorite walking rifle. My 10/22 take down not as much. The 2 balance differently may be part of it... It's become more of a shorter distance rifle that stays closer to camp.

I initially planned for them to wear identical scopes. I ended up with 2 different scopes for different roles that I didn't know they would settle into and would not have known unless I either shot them with irons 1st or maybe trial error-ed scopes.


You raise very valid reasons but you're not the vast majority of Joe Average rifle owner. Thats a compliment to you.


And I get the comb height cheek weld thing but millions & millions have be doing it. It may not be proper/ideal but certainly doable.

I mean, it's not uncommon for a hunter to competently shoot a scoped rifle standing, sitting, or prone with out getting a proper check weld in all 3 positions. But putting that same stock on a dedicated bench rest rifle would not be considered proper in the bench rest world
 
You raise very valid reasons but you're not the vast majority of Joe Average rifle owner. Thats a compliment to you.

Based on the market offerings - driven by years and now generations of consumer demand - I would say I fall much closer to Joe Average Rifle Owner in opinion of iron sights on rifles than anyone who believes irons should still be offered.

If consumers want something and will buy something, manufacturers will make and sell it. It’s really that simple. The average rifle buyer doesn’t want irons, so the average rifle doesn’t come offered with irons.
 
My personal opinion, I have no facts to base this on, only what I have heard and learned from talking to gun store clerks and manufacturing reps and reading magazines and online information.

The trend in optics only, no iron sights, on hunting rifles came about by manufacturers wanting to save money and the time it took to install iron sights. It also came about by scope manufacturers making better scopes for less money, mostly by transferring manufacturing to China.

Look at a rifle with iron sights and look at the machining and work it takes to install them. Then look at a rifle made for scope only sighting. I would bet that on QC alone a lot of money is saved on making a rifle and it’s barrel alignment if it’s made for scope only sighting. A lot of machine/ alignment slop can be made up for with a scope. Also, problematic alignment issues can be blamed on scopes and scope mounting.

Like I said, my opinion.

I personally like to have iron sights as a backup. Twice in one hunting trip far away from home I had scope failure due to my own clumsiness. Having backup iron sights would have been a plus had I encountered the mule deer I was seeking on that trip.
 
If consumers want something and will buy something, manufacturers will make and sell it. It’s really that simple. The average rifle buyer doesn’t want irons, so the average rifle doesn’t come offered with irons.


I remember ppl saying similar about the PC9 for yrs until it turned out to be a big hit and the line even expanded to fill the pent up market demand that supposedly didn't exist.

Marketing ppl, similar to politicians, have a way with swaying the market into what they want to sell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top