Scopes Are Great… But Iron Sights Feel Right

[CBeck]

Why Don’t We See More Hunting with Iron Sights? I know the topic comes up in various forms from time to time, but not a whole lot of discussion around it.

Plenty of people bow hunt at distances much closer than what a rifle with iron sights is capable of, yet hunting with irons seems increasingly rare.

I grew up shooting iron sights and still genuinely enjoy them. I’ve been shooting my .22 without a scope for the last 40 years, and I still do to this day.

What got me thinking about this recently was having to send the scope on my .375 Ruger Hawkeye African in for repair. With the scope off, the rifle just feels… right. The irons fit me like a glove, the balance improves, and the rifle handles exactly as it was clearly designed to…. not to mention just the reduction in weight alone.

I fully understand the advantages of a scope: extended range, precision, low-light performance, etc. This isn’t meant to be a “why limit yourself” debate. What did give me pause, though, was hearing a few people say they’d rather rent or borrow a rifle than hunt with iron sights if their scope failed (reading through the QD mount post earlier). I understand that in Africa, where a single drop of blood can equal a trophy fee, that concern is very real. (so is it the cost of not using optics?)

I often see criticism of the long-range, scoped-hunting crowd—people suggesting they’re not hunters, but snipers—yet I rarely see anyone advocating for iron sight hunting.

I’m curious—how many of you still enjoy shooting and hunting with irons? Would you consider going on a safari with iron sights only? And has anyone else had that moment where a rifle just feels so damn good without glass on top?

 

[BourbonTrail]

My 416 handles like a dream with irons, but I have so much trouble past 25 yards with irons (always have). I would probably fare better with a ghost ring. My 30-30 is the only other rifle with irons, and I almost never use it.

On safari, I would need the rifle to point and shoot like a shotgun for me to attempt irons.

 

[Green Chile]

I enjoy hunting vintage rifles with iron sights and my first safari many years ago was iron sights for DG. However, the biggest change in my hunting approach in the last 10 years was in adding scopes with illuminated reticles for DG use. In other words, I have added optics for up close DG work and my trophy quality and shot opportunities have increased noticeably. Many times I have gotten one shot that was successful with optics but I would NOT have taken it with irons. I'm much more successful with optics and it's not about shooting distance at all but mostly used at very short distances in heavy cover and bad light to sort out that specific old animal from within groups of animals. I feel like it has a lot to do with my record of success in clutch moments and not wounding/losing DG.

 

[mdwest]

I went through a "nostalgia" phase for a while.. wanted pretty wood and deep bluing on every gun.. shot iron sights on several.. etc.. told myself I was experiencing the same thing that Hemingway, Roosevelt, etc did (or as close as I could get to it), and doing things the "old" way was the most fulfilling, etc..etc..

but if Im honest with myself, that phase is a thing of the past now for me.. for the most part all of my hunting rifles, save just a few, are synthetic stocked, stainless or have some sort of durable finish like cerakote, etc.. have quality optics on them, etc..etc..

Today Im in much more of a "practical" phase and am more interested in having tools that are the most effective, and the most weather/damage resistant, that they possibly can be.. etc..

My old eyes arent what they used to me... and my old back, knees, and ankles arent what they used to be... today I'll take a hyper light kevlar stock over wonderfully grained walnut.. and will take bright and clear german/austrian glass over quality irons.. I get more out of the hunt that way..

I certainly dont disparage anyone that wants the challenge of irons, or that sees them as more practical for themselves over a red dot or a variable power optic, etc.. in fact, I think its pretty cool that some people still gravitate toward nostalgia or toward additional challenge..

Its just not for me anymore.. even my .375 is a stainless, in a synthetic stock, topped with zeiss glass now..

 

[Ontario Hunter]

I have to ask the OP, "How old are you?" Once we get past fifty, eyesight typically deteriorates rapidly. It is not fair to game for an aged hunter to be pushing the envelope with bad eyes and iron sights.

Might be a couple of reasons why your Ruger feels better with irons. 1) The scope you had on it may be mounted too high and/or 2) the stock is not designed for scope (especially if rings/base are too high). My 404 98 Mauser and Springfield 03A3 both have modified Monte Carlo style stocks and low QD rings/bases (very low for 98 Mauser). They both acquire target instantly when gun is mounted, scope on or off.

 

[BJH65]

Many of us are 50 or older and the old eyes just aren’t the same. I agree with you about the handling of a hunting rifle, some outfitted with iron sights just “feel” better without a scope. I suppose a red dot is a viable remedy. Since my primary interest in African hunting is DG, it’s imperative to me that I place my shot exactly where it needs to go in the vitals and a good scope helps me accomplish this.

 

[BeeMaa]

Irons only on a rifle is sexy. Used by a MAN to harvest game at the longest of ranges. Unfortunately that’s not me anymore.

My aging eyes find using some sort of optic to greatly improve my ability to be on target and hit it. Although I have iron sights on my rifles, I will typically default to some sort of red dot (usually an AimPoint T2) for shots inside 100 yards.

Beyond 100 yards, it’s some sort of magnified optic. My rifles don’t look sexy anymore but they will certainly get the job done.

 

[BillyJack1975]

I couldn’t agree more. I still hunt with them. I even had factory express sights installed on my featherweight 300WSM as backup, and they do work great. My new 375 Safari Express shoots light out at 100 yds and is pretty handy without the extra weight. I’m planning on hunting Buff and a lioness in a couple of years with it as is. No need for a scope for me. I still hunt open sights with my 30-30 as well. For me, iron sights, puts dangerous game hunting on a more level playing field, at least in my mind. I hunt with recurves and longbows (almost) exclusively. I prefer the challenge.
All of that could change if my eyesight diminishes though. To each their own. But I’m an avid of hunting with irons whenever possible.

 

[318AE]

I traveled to Africa once with two rifles, both of which had only irons sights. I enjoy the challenge. I was 48 at the time. I was ridiculed by a few established forums members here for doing so, basically being called anachronistic. Every trip since, I’ve taken at least one rifle with iron sights.

There is a respect for bow hunters, which chose an implement that requires them to get very close, and in some circles a disdain for the ultra long range crowd, but really no respect for iron sights. You have to be comfortable skipping shots you would take with a scope, and have to be patient. I like to get “in the animals bubble”, and my range with iron sights is likely closer to bow hunting range, than the 300-400 yards most here are comfortable with a scoped rifle. This all depends greatly on quarry and conditions of course. This is really not the “model” where you will get 1-2 animals per day, and fill your walls with taxidermy your first trip. I got three animals in 10 days with only iron sights, and was quite happy with the experience.

The PH has to familiar with the use of iron sights too, much the way they have to guide a bow hunter differently.

 

[CBeck]

I have to ask the OP, "How old are you?" Once we get past fifty, eyesight typically deteriorates rapidly. It is not fair to game for an aged hunter to be pushing the envelope with bad eyes and iron sights.

Might be a couple of reasons why your Ruger feels better with irons. 1) The scope you had on it may be mounted too high and/or 2) the stock is not designed for scope (especially if rings/base are too high). My 404 98 Mauser and Springfield 03A3 both have modified Monte Carlo style stocks and low QD rings/bases (very low for 98 Mauser). They both acquire target instantly when gun is mounted, scope on or off.

Mid-50s, and like most, I do wear corrective lenses. That said, my vision is excellent with contacts, and with a small reading addition built into them, modern corrective lenses are fantastic. I still see my iron sights very well.

….and when I say it feels better without optics, I’m primarily referring to instantly shaving off 20 ounces of weight and a top heavy profile.

 

[CBeck]

I traveled to Africa once with two rifles, both of which had only irons sights. I enjoy the challenge. I was 48 at the time. I was ridiculed by a few established forums members here for doing so, basically being called anachronistic. Every trip since, I’ve taken at least one rifle with iron sights.

There is a respect for bow hunters, which chose an implement that requires them to get very close, and in some circles a disdain for the ultra long range crowd, but really no respect for iron sights. You have to be comfortable skipping shots you would take with a scope, and have to be patient. I like to get “in the animals bubble”, and my range with iron sights is likely closer to bow hunting range, than the 300-400 yards most here are comfortable with a scoped rifle. This all depends greatly on quarry and conditions of course. This is really not the “model” where you will get 1-2 animals per day, and fill your walls with taxidermy your first trip. I got three animals in 10 days with only iron sights, and was quite happy with the experience.

The PH has to familiar with the use of iron sights too, much the way they have to guide a bow hunter differently.

Yes, this is exactly the quandary I was referring to..

Hunting with what are considered “primitive” weapons—bows, muzzleloaders—is often praised for the skill, challenge, and closeness it requires. Long-range hunting with optics, on the other hand, is sometimes disparaged, with critics suggesting it’s more about shooting than hunting.

Yet hunting with iron sights is often dismissed outright as a handicap, despite requiring skill and offering a very pure shooting experience.

Failing eyesight is completely understandable and of course there’s a whole other category of the younger generation that was brought up with rifles that never had iron sights and don’t know how to use them

I’m really just looking to open a discussion around this: why is one traditional skill celebrated, another sometimes criticized, and iron sight hunting so rarely advocated? If I’m being honest, I’m in the camp that with the cost of a trophy I’m going to err on the side of caution.

It’s just an interesting topic to me….

 

[Boyd Brooks]

I enjoyed hunting with iron sited rifles as a youth and young man, but failing eyesight makes it difficult now, as repeated by others.
Most of my scoped rifles have QD rings with irons still on the rifle. I have an old single shot ACE 22 that I still enjoy hunting rabbits and partridge with, but big game now is a scoped rifle. I put a red dot on my 44 Ruger carbine that has no magnification, just so my eye can find it easier, but used it for years with irons in tight bush deer hunting.
I personally think a rifle looks a little weird without iron sites on it.

 

[375Fox]

I said I’d rather rent a rifle than use open sights. I can shoot well at range with iron sights but that doesn’t make me comfortable pulling the trigger on an animal, whether I pay for it or not. The biggest disadvantage to open sights to me (other than no magnification) is loss of perspective. You can see entire animal in scope or red dot. With irons you have tunnel vision and can only see part of the animal that isn’t covered by the sights.
If someone wants to hunt with irons do it. Talk to your outfitter and PH when you book. Limit yourself to ranges you can shoot accurately. I don’t agree with the comparison to long range shooting. Most hunting shots are inside 200 yards. A scope made shots that would have already been taken before scopes more accurate and less wounding rates. My criticism of long range hunting is wounding rates. If you don’t have some certainty you can make an accurate shot on your first shot I don’t think you should be taking it. I don’t think hunters should be walking bullets in at long distance, hitting the animal anywhere, then be unable to locate where they even shot the animal to find blood. If you want to hunt with iron sights go for it. Just hold yourself to ranges you are confident. I think paying for the animal causes hunters to think much more carefully before pulling the trigger than unguided in North America.

 

[dlmac]

At 74 I need a scope now. Yes I can use a peep sight out to 100, maybe 200 on a Moose. I am envious of people who have good eye sight after 60 y/o. As in all things do not let pride get in the way of making good decisions.

 

[cwpayton]

IM looking at a buffalo hunt, using open iron sights, using my 375. but limiting my shot to 75 yds. its a safe queen and Id like to keep it that way with no scope but my right eye is fading so it will require discipline but thats the hunt I want, its all about the hunt for me.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Why Don’t We See More Hunting with Iron Sights? I know the topic comes up in various forms from time to time, but not a whole lot of discussion around it.

Plenty of people bow hunt at distances much closer than what a rifle with iron sights is capable of, yet hunting with irons seems increasingly rare.

I grew up shooting iron sights and still genuinely enjoy them. I’ve been shooting my .22 without a scope for the last 40 years, and I still do to this day.

What got me thinking about this recently was having to send the scope on my .375 Ruger Hawkeye African in for repair. With the scope off, the rifle just feels… right. The irons fit me like a glove, the balance improves, and the rifle handles exactly as it was clearly designed to…. not to mention just the reduction in weight alone.

I fully understand the advantages of a scope: extended range, precision, low-light performance, etc. This isn’t meant to be a “why limit yourself” debate. What did give me pause, though, was hearing a few people say they’d rather rent or borrow a rifle than hunt with iron sights if their scope failed (reading through the QD mount post earlier). I understand that in Africa, where a single drop of blood can equal a trophy fee, that concern is very real. (so is it the cost of not using optics?)

I often see criticism of the long-range, scoped-hunting crowd—people suggesting they’re not hunters, but snipers—yet I rarely see anyone advocating for iron sight hunting.

I’m curious—how many of you still enjoy shooting and hunting with irons? Would you consider going on a safari with iron sights only? And has anyone else had that moment where a rifle just feels so damn good without glass on top?

I think most of us, especially those of us in the West, started serious hunting with scope sighted rifles. Many, maybe most, that have made it to the place where we can afford to hunt in far off places, such as Africa, have aged past the young eyes required for iron sights. I can still.use the peep on my muzzle loader or my dad's old Marlin .22, but I really don't want to.be limited to less than 100 yards with a.modern hunting rifle and I don't have the eyes I once had.

 

[Schüler Jumbo]

I like the idea of open or express sights. In heavy bush and close range scenarios I use a Ghost Ring on a .338 and a Night-Sight on a .500. I employ a red dot in competitive shooting but have not yet used a red dot in the hunting fields. The vast majority of my hunting is with a scope focused on placement of first shot.

 

[Rifleman97]

I love iron sights. I don’t love how few guns I like have them from the factory. I don’t love how expensive they are to add on to a gun. I don’t like the design of many of the more affordable factory guns make their rear sights. My furthest shot on game with irons was a 3” slug in a rifled barrel shotgun at 150 paces on a whitetail deer, aimed for spine and the slug dropped down right into the heart through the shoulder blade. Plenty accurate enough for me.

 

[Datchew]

I was happy with irons for quite awhile but always struggled in very low light.
When I discovered illuminated reticles I went to glass.

I still do some hunting with a pistol with irons but that's not really a precise type of hunting

Still... In the right weather and conditions I enjoy some time with the old war horse.

 

[Jefferry404]

Great discussion! and timely. All my rifles have irons, mostly express sights (except my 338 Lapua for long range). Wear glasses, sight not that good but get 1" group at 50yds, usually off-hand. Scopes are great and I have my share but boy, they sure take away the nice lines of a bolt action rifle.
Just going thru preliminary load development for 338-06AI and here is one of the loads for irons. 200 yard zero for the 1st folding leaf. So as long as I know the range is less than 235yds, always within the vital zone, sounds good to me.

As an aside, irons are alive and well here Colorado
CNC design for Wesley Richards/Rigby old school rear sight