Back-Up Iron Sights Problem


PDA






The_Armed_Therapist
May 15, 2013, 10:38 AM
I recently purchased a new rifle. It's a customized Mauser. It is drilled and tapped on top of the receiver for mounting a scope. My plan was to install see-through rings and a Bushnell Elite 3200 10X scope. It also has a really nice Monte Carlo stock.

Well... here's the deal. The Monte Carlo stock raises my cheek/eye to a level at which I can JUST line up the iron sights. If this were the only issue, it would be workable until I could purchase a new stock. However, the BUIS are close enough to the barrel that with the mount on top of the receiver, it is impossible to see the iron sights. So, in order to use the iron sights I'd not just have to remove the rings/scope (relatively fast), but also unscrew and remove the mount (much longer than just the rings/scope).

I'm not the best mechanical problem-solver in the world, hence my career. I can't find a way around this issue of the mount blocking the BUIS. Any ideas? Like I said, if this can somehow be solved to my satisfaction (a clear view of the BUIS), then the rest can be handled easily.

Any help or input would be appreciated!

If you enjoyed reading about "Back-Up Iron Sights Problem" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dprice3844444
May 15, 2013, 10:55 AM
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_pg_1?rh=n%3A3375251%2Ck%3Aback+up+sights&keywords=back+up+sights&ie=UTF8&qid=1368629681
http://era-tac.de/en/news/73-notvisierung.html scope mounted back up sight
http://us.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=scope+bounted+back+up+sights&hspart=att&hsimp=yhs-att_001&type=att_lego_portal_home

jmr40
May 15, 2013, 05:21 PM
Trying to use see through mounts is a really, really, really, bad idea. Basically they stink. Even if you were able to see the irons under the scope the scope is so high it makes it almost impossible to use it correctly. They are the worst of all options.

First of all forget about iron sights and just use a quality scope. I've had more iron sights fail in my lifetime than quality scopes. Can't say that about junk scopes. If you don't go too high on magnification a scope does everything better anyway, includng quick close range snap shots.

If you insist on using both you will need to buy Quick Detachable mounts.

http://swfa.com/Leupold-Quick-Release-Weaver-Style-1-Rings-C703.aspx

The scope comes off in seconds with no tools. You can always file down the stocks comb to lower your eyes to use the irons and refinish the stock. It ain't that hard.

stubbicatt
May 16, 2013, 08:03 AM
I've had more iron sights fail in my lifetime... says JMR40

Wow, really? What, did you throw your rifle down a cliff or something? Iron sights are as close to indestructible as you can find... I do not doubt your word, far from it. I can only imagine that it would take some serious abuse to affect irons.

To OP, the JMR40 suggestion of quick release is probably your best bet if you wish to keep the irons where they can be used if needed. As you have discovered, the see through mounts can be fickle. Another option you might explore is a side mount for your scope, sort of like the old Mannlicher Schoenaur designs. It drills and taps into the side of your receiver, leaving the irons useable. It is a bit more refined than the Mosin Nagant PU sniper, but the same idea.

Regards,
Stiubb

The_Armed_Therapist
May 16, 2013, 10:14 AM
Trying to use see through mounts is a really, really, really, bad idea. Basically they stink. Even if you were able to see the irons under the scope the scope is so high it makes it almost impossible to use it correctly. They are the worst of all options.


I know a lot of people don't like this set-up, but I've used this set-up a ton. It works very well for me.

MistWolf
May 16, 2013, 05:08 PM
Just mount the scope and don't worry about the iron sights. A good modern scope will prove rugged enough unless you're planning to go hunt in very adverse conditions. Get a better scope than the Bushnell.

Now that I think of it, I've needed to repair more iron sights than scopes. I've had two scopes fail- both cheapies. But I've had shotgun beads break off, the rear sight of a 10/22 break, the front bead of another 10/22 go MIA and am continually replacing a roll pin on the rear sight of a 1911. I've also had the elevation ramp of three or four 22 rifles disappear

Cosmoline
May 16, 2013, 05:19 PM
Original Mauser military sights won't fail under any conditions this side of a Soviet tank's treads.

How badly altered was the piece? If it's still more or less intact you should be able to just stick it back in Mauser wood and your irons will then line up perfectly. The scope is not needed anyway.

The_Armed_Therapist
May 17, 2013, 09:48 AM
LOL... Wow. Some saying I don't need iron sights; some saying I don't need a scope. Some saying iron sights are almost indestructable; others saying they're much more fragile than scopes. Criticizing the Bushnell ET 10X? Seriously? I'm not looking for criticisms.

I'm looking for troubleshooting suggestions. I know what I want, and I was asking for ways to try and get there, or as close as possible. Maybe what I want isn't possible; if so, then I need to know. That's all.

Thank you, Stubbicat. I'm not too sure about a quick detachable set-up, but will look into it. I'll also look into the side mount idea. Thanks!

Art Eatman
May 17, 2013, 11:35 AM
I've been using scope-sighted rifles since 1950. I've done many and many a mile of walking hunting in extremely rugged country. I've yet to have any need for see-through mounts. Never.

I figure a fella oughta do whatever he wants, but there are some things I don't see any need for. :)

Cosmoline
May 17, 2013, 12:28 PM
Well the problem is that Monte Carlo was made for scopes, and the Mauser military stock was made for irons. So I guess if you want one that works with both you'd need to get one of the Archangel style adjustable stocks.

MistWolf
May 18, 2013, 12:52 AM
LOL... Wow. Some saying I don't need iron sights; some saying I don't need a scope. Some saying iron sights are almost indestructable; others saying they're much more fragile than scopes. Criticizing the Bushnell ET 10X? Seriously? I'm not looking for criticisms.

I'm looking for troubleshooting suggestions. I know what I want, and I was asking for ways to try and get there, or as close as possible. Maybe what I want isn't possible; if so, then I need to know. That's all.

Thank you, Stubbicat. I'm not too sure about a quick detachable set-up, but will look into it. I'll also look into the side mount idea. Thanks!

If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question. Whether you are looking for criticism or not, Bushnell is a lower end scope.

Have you shot the rifle with the Monte Carlo using the iron sights? Everyone is built different, but it's been my experience that shooting a rifle with a Monte Carlo or a modern classic stock is painful with 308 class calibers. It's not worth the trouble.

My father set up a neat little Mauser 98 in 7x57 in a Bishop stock with a Monte Carlo and cheek piece for my mother. As the original barrel was used and the rifle retained it's Mauser sights, swing away rings were used so the scope could be tipped to the side. After a couple of shots, pain wore through the novelty rapidly.

You could increase the drop of the comb of the stock so it's easier to use the iron sights. But that places your face lower in relationship to the scope and increases the chances the objective will hit your face. Yes, I've been there.

Some iron sights ain't worth the effort it takes to remove and chuck them in the trash. Some are very rugged and well thought out. Both of the broken Ruger sights took a good, but I've a couple Leupold scopes that have been hit just as hard without damage. This isn't to say iron sights are fragile or worthless, just that like a cheap scope, cheap iron sights can fail too and because it's likely the shooter will be mounting optics, most iron sights used are pretty cheap to save costs.

There have been plenty of scopes in my family I have personally used seen used first hand over the past few decades, including Bushnells. When it was said & done, only the Leupolds and the El Paso made Weavers remain. All others- Bushnell, Tasco, Nikon, BSA and a couple others have all been sold off or broken. (I personally had two scopes break- one was a cheap .22 scope, the other a Burris. I gave the Burris to a friend and Burris gave him excellent customer service in replacing that scope.)

So when asked, my minimum recommendation for a scope is a Leupold. They are rugged and I've never needed back up iron sights, even after banging them on rocks or letting them rattle around in a Jeep on 4x4 trails or when I fell and slid a quarter the way down a mountain in the Tehachapis.

If you already know what you want, have at it. But if you ask how to make it work, don't get upset when some damn fool points out it's a waste of time

HOOfan_1
May 18, 2013, 01:11 AM
Bushnell is a lower end scope.



The Bushnell Elite 3200 are good scopes...

Cocked & Locked
May 18, 2013, 10:29 AM
I've never used see-through-mounts but in my mind I don't like them. Reason being I like the scope mounted low to the bore.

Another option is to use detachable mounts. I zero my iron sights at 50 yards and scopes 1.5" high at 100 yards.

I like the idea of being able to remove the scope easily if I drop the rifle or damage the scope.

So...detachable rings on most of my rifles if they have iron sights.

http://pic90.picturetrail.com/VOL2169/3082611/17383006/375630575.jpg

http://pic90.picturetrail.com/VOL2169/3082611/17383006/400977564.jpg


Just my thoughts on scopes based on my experiences...

Leupolds are great

Bushnell Elites are great (got several of them)

EL Paso Weavers are rugged but not very bright

Weaver Classic scopes (Japan) are rugged and bright

Older Redfields are great

Burris...won't buy another. Had one very good one and two terrible ones

For rifles without iron sights the DNZ mounts are very good

http://pic90.picturetrail.com/VOL2169/3082611/17383006/400967693.jpg

The_Armed_Therapist
May 18, 2013, 12:01 PM
If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question. Whether you are looking for criticism or not, Bushnell is a lower end scope.... So when asked, my minimum recommendation for a scope is a Leupold.

Never even came close to asking for scope recommendations.

The_Armed_Therapist
May 18, 2013, 01:00 PM
Now, do these quickly detachable scope mounts actually hold zero well?

Can you take them off and put them back on with the same POI? I guess it wouldn't necessarily HAVE to. If you needed to remove them in a pinch, then it's probably going to be worth the trouble to re-sight the scope. Or, if it's because the scope isn't functioning, of course.

sayak
May 18, 2013, 11:24 PM
I once was packing hunting stuff onto a an airplane for for a caribou trip when my buddy's kid dropped my hard-cased rifle on the tarmac. Result was several missed shots until I realized what was going on and borrowed a an iron sighted .270 from another hunter and killed my animals with that.
Just the other day my son's almost new Trijicon went haywire at the range. Wasn't even roughly used. It happens. If you are off the beaten path and something happens to your scope (and you don't have another ready to swap it out), you are screwed.
I am putting irons on my .308 Ruger American for that reason. I already have my scope on Warne Q/Ds and have a Weaver Backup base peep ready to put on the scope mount. As for the front; lo and behold an Enfield No.1 Mk III front sight just needs a little emery paper work inside the band to fit right over the .308's muzzle, and with some high end epoxy, the sight will be affixed and all I will have to do is mess with a few different sight blades to get it sighted in for elevation.and windage.
It is always good to have a back-up plan. Always.

If you enjoyed reading about "Back-Up Iron Sights Problem" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!