Rigby would like to know your caliber preference(s) for a Highland Stalker model without iron sights

I am guessing they are getting into the carbon barrel and high end wood game. Could be wrong, I wouldn't hate it.

illini said:

I am guessing they are getting into the carbon barrel and high end wood game. Could be wrong, I wouldn't hate it.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure I would like it either. Not on a nice timber stocked rifle.

As I’ve aged iron sights have no use! Only once in the last 12 years have I removed an optic to use irons. Was during a stalk with a double when suddenly my RMR failed due to a new disc battery splitting apart.
Ask yourself how many times have you had to use iron Sites because your scope failed or you choose not to use a scope or red dot.
As we age or ability to use iron, Sites becomes more difficult and I’ve learned that with a stocking rifle I like a little shorter barrel about 23 inches sometimes even a little less with no sites to hook up on vegetation grass tree limbs or anything else that I might encounter.
My favorite 375 is an early Dakota 76 with no iron sites at all and a 23 inch barrel it’s fairly light for a Dakota and makes a great stocking rifle also have a 300 win mag almost identical, including scope.
for reason stated above people like iron sites and they do think it makes most big game rifles more sellable, but that has changed over the last Decker or so. just my two cents worth.

CBH Australia said:

I’m not sure I would like it either. Not on a nice timber stocked rifle.

Click to expand...

No, I am saying I do like high grade wood with a carbon barrel. Griffen and Howe
Ale them. I lobe the look. The ones without sights. They also make a carbon wood gun with sights. I didnt like it as much.

The older I get the more I use my hunting rifles less. My choice isn't on the chart, but would be used a LOT more. I'm suggesting a .22-250, yup a varmint caliber. I'd actually use it & admire it way more than a traditional hunting caliber.
Thanks.

Surgeon1 said:

As I’ve aged iron sights have no use! Only once in the last 12 years have I removed an optic to use irons. Was during a stalk with a double when suddenly my RMR failed due to a new disc battery splitting apart.
Ask yourself how many times have you had to use iron Sites because your scope failed or you choose not to use a scope or red dot.
As we age or ability to use iron, Sites becomes more difficult and I’ve learned that with a stocking rifle I like a little shorter barrel about 23 inches sometimes even a little less with no sites to hook up on vegetation grass tree limbs or anything else that I might encounter.
My favorite 375 is an early Dakota 76 with no iron sites at all and a 23 inch barrel it’s fairly light for a Dakota and makes a great stocking rifle also have a 300 win mag almost identical, including scope.
for reason stated above people like iron sites and they do think it makes most big game rifles more sellable, but that has changed over the last Decker or so. just my two cents worth.

Click to expand...

I’m pretty much with you on this. In all the years I’ve hunted, I can count on one hand the times I’ve actually needed irons, while a good optic gets used every single hunt. I really like the 23" barrel idea too—short enough to carry through thick country without constantly snagging, but still plenty of barrel for a .375. That Dakota 76 sounds like a fantastic rifle. Do you find the 23" .375 noticeably handier than your .300 Win Mag in the field?

Ontario Hunter said:

Interesting. Why would Rigby want to offer a stalking rifle without even the option of iron sights? Save a bit of money? With the increased popularity of present return-to-zero quick detach rings I think retaining the option of iron sights, at least the front sight, makes more sense. I primarily hunt with optics but in bad weather or very rough/steep terrain I will remove the scope and switch to irons.

If economy is the objective, I would suggest tapping the receiver for traditional scope bases, plug them with blind screws, and include a ramped brass bead front sight minus hood. If the front sight ramp is high enough, a quick detach ghost ring rear sight can be attached to rear scope base as needed. Or a red dot sight (which would not require front sight).

30-06 will always be tops for a stalking rifle.

Click to expand...

Maybe for a suppressor? Or is that a sign of heresy?

AndrewClarksonSS said:

I’m pretty much with you on this. In all the years I’ve hunted, I can count on one hand the times I’ve actually needed irons, while a good optic gets used every single hunt. I really like the 23" barrel idea too—short enough to carry through thick country without constantly snagging, but still plenty of barrel for a .375. That Dakota 76 sounds like a fantastic rifle. Do you find the 23" .375 noticeably handier than your .300 Win Mag in the field?

Click to expand...

Here in central NY during November we have a few days most every year where snow on warmer ground creates a low hanging fog rendering scopes pretty much useless. Open sights won’t cut through fog but are still functional. Personally I have 2 rifles that don’t have irons. Both were won in raffles. All my rifles I have purchased wear irons. In thick cover stillhunting I prefer irons.

Fargo Boyle said:

Maybe for a suppressor? Or is that a sign of heresy?

Click to expand...

It would be a step in that direction for sure. Maybe also add a fluted bolt with a knob the size of a Kenworth ball joint. And an extended box magazine. Definitely can't have a classic military style flag safety on a modern sporting rifle. No, that would have to go.

I would recommend Model 70 style safety and retaining iron sights. Instead of traditional sweated on go with a ramp for front sight that is screwed on. A cap for suppressor threads could be designed that allows for the front sight ramp to be slipped over it and reattached with a screw(s). Or possibly locked onto the cap in another fashion? Those gotta-have classic barrel band front sights would seem to me capable of covering suppressor thread cap. When/if the suppressor is mounted, the screw hole(s) could be plugged with appropriate blued headless screws.

My "classic" 404 on a Czech military Mauser and WWII Springfield 03A3 both wear the same 1990s vintage Winchester Safari Express iron sights front and rear that are attached with screws. My eyes are still capable at age 74 (in exactly a week) of shooting 2" groups at 100 yards (looking over my prescription lenses). Nice to have the option of removing the quick detach scope and switching to irons in bad weather or very rough terrain. Even with their modern scopes attached and lack of dopey ribbed multi-leaf rear sights and muzzle encasing front sights, they still pass for classic looking. Close enough anyway. This is my 03A3, sans the trademark knurled knob on end of striker.

Both rifles could very quickly resume an almost "pure" classic stalking/DGR rifle appearance by removing the scope and scope base (attached with hex-head screws) and plugging the holes in receiver with headless screws ... if the pure classic look was important to me ... and it's not. For me a suppressor is out of the question. Recoil and report are part of the sport. Always have been. I cannot understand someone buying an expensive classic stalking rifle (or DGR) to hunt with a bunch of technocrap attached to it. I laugh to myself every time I see images of dandies all dolled up in Victorian period "white hunter" costume and carrying fancy classic designed rifles with electronic sights or giant barrel booger suppressors attached. Seems an oxymoron.