At what magnification is a scope superior to iron sights?

[clutch]

I've been benching a Savage MKII FVT that comes with Williams receiver sights and I've mounted both a 4x and two 3x9 scopes on it to see if I can improve on my groups.

For a target, I use a target with a large bull that scales to my front sight post and for the scope, I put an round orange sticker on centered on the bull.

So far I'm getting better groups with iron sights. I don't have what I consider superior vision, I'm over fifty, my near vision is about gone and since I have always been myopic, far vision has depended on glasses for 40+ years.

I can't read traffic signs as far away as I used to so whatever I started out with has declined. I think I have average vision.

So the question I hope I have framed correctly is at what power with a good scope vs good aperture sights shooting at a target that is appropriate for each is where the scope begins to rule?

Thank you,

Clutch

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

I'd say probably at about 4x.

 

[Red Cent]

.
.
.2x

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

what is the parallax on the scopes set to?

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

Also I would say it depends a lot on the quality and design of the irons. With the irons on the M1/M14/M1a rifles, I feel a lot more comfortable than I would the irons on a different rifle.

 

[ldhulk]

I would say that light conditions would have a lot to do with it. If you don't have a hood over the front sight, the position of the sun can affect your sight picture. Also, of course, there are a lot of differences in clarity and reicules between various scopes.

 

[Sam Cade]

.
.
.2x

Kinda what I was thinking.

 

[VA27]

Even at 1:1 (0 power) a 'scope is superior to iron sights simply because it places the rear sight, front sight and target in the same focal plane. It takes sight alignment completely out of the picture (so to speak) and allows you concentrate on sight picture.

 

[NCsmitty]

Even at 1:1 (0 power) a 'scope is superior to iron sights simply because it places the rear sight, front sight and target in the same focal plane. It takes sight alignment completely out of the picture (so to speak) and allows you concentrate on sight picture.

Precisely, especially with 50 year old eyes.



NCsmitty

 

[wingman]

After 60 years of shooting I wont use open sights prefer scope,red dot,
eotech, laser anything other then open sights.

 

[Picher]

A scope is considerably better in low light or sunlight/shadow conditions. A variable that goes from 2-8x or 3-9x is generally considered optimal, though lots of people use 2-7x for lightness and compactness.

I also agree that scopes can be faster than irons and easier to use beyond about 15 yards than iron sights because the reticle and target are on the same focal plane and there are only two points to line up instead of three.

 

[clutch]

I think I should have specified receiver sights. I believe I'm getting responses from those that have only shot mid barrel buckhorn iron sights which are garbage.

Clutch

 

[trex1310]

So the question I hope I have framed correctly is at what power with a good scope vs good aperture sights shooting at a target that is appropriate for each is where the scope begins to rule?

At what distance?

 

[Haxby]

My Leupold 1-4x actually only goes down to 1.6x. That is far superior for my eye than the receiver sight on my grandson's 22. No contest.

 

[bhk]

Actually, if you are shooting prone there won't be a lot of difference between a scope and aperture sights (especially if you use an aperture front in addition to one in the rear). The scores at the National Matches at Camp Perry show much overlapping of scores between the scoped and iron sighted matches. The absolutely top scores are usually a couple points higher with scopes, but as I said, there is much overlapping with these elite shooters. If you remove much of the human factor by shooting off the bench, then those with scopes of any power will almost always shoot better.

In the field, hunting or plinking, scopes usually beat the average iron sight setup.

 

[wally]

With 60 year old eyeballs and presbyopia a clear 1X scope is better than an out of focus set of irons!

When I was in my twenties I saw no need for scopes and generally thought they ruined a guns looks and handling. But now, since hitting is a lot more fun than missing, even a cheap scope or red dot is better for me than irons.

 

[BrocLuno]

Depends on the hunt. Pigs in thick brush - irons and fast. Deer in timber or some open range, scope all the way.

 

[clutch]

Actually, if you are shooting prone there won't be a lot of difference between a scope and aperture sights (especially if you use an aperture front in addition to one in the rear). The scores at the National Matches at Camp Perry show much overlapping of scores between the scoped and iron sighted matches. The absolutely top scores are usually a couple points higher with scopes, but as I said, there is much overlapping with these elite shooters. If you remove much of the human factor by shooting off the bench, then those with scopes of any power will almost always shoot better.

Do you have any idea of what power magnification these shooters tend to use?
Right now shooting a .22 at 50yards using a 50 yard small bore target (A-23) I get better groups with my irons than with my scopes. This may be a case were I have a few scopes that are all garbage and I finally have a rifle good enough to tell me that.

In the field, hunting or plinking, scopes usually beat the average iron sight setup.

Absolutely. The only way I can really shoot irons precisely is to have a properly sized back aiming area for the distance I am shooting. Not something you have plinking cans or shooting game.

Thanks,

Clutch

 

[wally]

Right now shooting a .22 at 50yards using a 50 yard small bore target (A-23) I get better groups with my irons than with my scopes.

How are the scopes mounted? The "traditional" 3/8" grooved mounts on .22 rifles often let the scope slide around despite the limited recoil of a .22LR. I try to avoid them if possible, but I put a little Loc-Tite 620 retaining compound in the groove when I mount the rings (must degrease everything first, rubbing alcohol usually works fine) if that is my only option without spending for gunsmith services.

Another issue could be parallax if your eye is not centered in the scope's field of view and the scope's parallax setting is different from the target distance. Serious target shooters usually get a scope with adjustable parallax for this reason. Most non-adjustable "centerfire" scopes are set for 100 yards, most "rimfire" scopes are set for 50, but reading the scope's manual is the only real way to be sure.

You also need to have the scope's "diopter" focus ring set so the reticle is clearly in focus when your eye is focused at "infinity". Look at at something featureless and distant (sky works well) and mount the gun. The reticle should be immediately clear, if your eye has to adjust to see it clearly the diopter setting is wrong.

 

[Walkalong]

For good eyes, I would say distance before power. Poor close vision, any power.

Target rifle? Any power, but the higher the better if the gun is capable of putting them all in one hole.

 

[Skyshot]

It's not the sights but the eye that looks through them.

 

[wingman]

Truthfully with the variety of scopes/sights available today I see no need for open/iron sights, to me it compares to standard transmission vs automatic. I recently purchased an AR and it was a flat top so it explains my take on standard sights, but in all things it depends on need, use and personal taste.

 

[Cosmoline]

They're just different approaches. For older eyes that have a hard time keeping the front sight locked in, scopes can really improve matters. But you do NOT have to be able to precisely see the target in order to hit exactly where you want to. I think a lot of younger shooters don't realize how effective good quality irons (as opposed to a bent piece of sheet metal rammed into dovetail) can be.

 

[bhk]

Truthfully with the variety of scopes/sights available today I see no need for open/iron sights, to me it compares to standard transmission vs automatic. I recently purchased an AR and it was a flat top so it explains my take on standard sights, but in all things it depends on need, use and personal taste.

After 50 years of shooting, I disagree. Most of my rifles are scoped, but some rifles beg to be carried and shot with irons. Lever actions are a perfect example. They are so easy to carry with your arm by your side with your hand wrapped firmly around the receiver. Just not the same with a scope. And don't even try to carry your AR that way (I know, I have one).

I bird hunt a LOT and am used to carrying my shotgun that way. It it nice to have the option to carry a rifle that way also. Now, if I am in a deer stand or coyote set-up overlooking a large field, my rifle is scoped. If I am trying to shoot small groups on my backyard range, my rifle is scoped. First day of deer season, a scope. But for a woods bumming rifle to carry for a hike around my property or a deer rifle for my second or third deer, nothing beats a lever action with a receiver sight. I also shoot a lot of steel targets and really think that is much more fun and challenging with iron sights.

I just added a pre-64 Winchester 94 to my stable. First thing I did was buy a vintage Redfield receiver sight for it. It was the right thing to do.

 

[jmr40]

I'm in the camp that says range and light conditions are more important than how many X's are on your scope.

Out to 100 yards or so with good iron sights and good light there is darn little difference in my group sizes no matter how powerful the scope. Even out to 200 I'm pretty good with very low powered scopes or irons as long as the light is good. In poor light or extended range the scope is more helpful. The scope doesn't make anything any more accurate. It just helps you see the target better.