Backup sights on a hunting rifle?

[Charles S]

Long.

I am in the process of building my “all purpose†rifle. The game I hunt includes the Southern White Tail, I also hunt Feral Hogs the largest of which, generally, are no larger than 300#.

The land I hunt is primarily pine thickets and deciduous forest. I do hunt clear cut areas and right of ways where my shots can be as far as 450 yards. I do not intend on making a shot that is longer than 300 yards on the really large game.


I would like to hunt antelope, mule deer, the bigger Northern White Tail deer, Black Tail deer, Cous Deer, Moose, Caribou, and Elk. I have no desire to hunt the bears, but I do fully intend on hunting in bear country. If I can avoid a confrontation I will, but I intend on defending myself if necessary.

The question is: How many of you have a backup sighting system?

I strongly dislike open sights with see through scope mounts.

When you mount a scope low with quick detachable mounts the sights show as a blur in the lower part of the field.

I have heard that some people utilize a quick detachable mount setup and have a second scope that is zeroed for their primary rifle.

Is there a better solution?

Is it really necessary? In 21 years of hunting I have never had a scope fail. I had a rope break and my Remington 700 with a Leupold scope in Weaver mounts fell about 12 feet. The scope did not break and retained its zero.

Just looking for other opinions from people with more experience than myself.

Thanks for your input.

Charles

 

[Mulliga]

Think of it like this - iron sights aren't indestructible, either. A good hard fall of 12 feet can ruin iron sights, too. That said, they are more durable, but the real advantage IMO of using them is when you are shooting in snow or rain; even then, if it's not raining or snowing too hard, you can usually use a scope.

The Leupold quick release mounts are a great system. Might be overkill to have a second scope; for the price of another good quality scope, you can usually have a backup rifle with iron sights .

 

[Dave R]

FWIW, I have both iron sights and scope on my hunting rifle (Rem700). No see-through mounts. The scope is the primary sighting system.

But if the scope goes bad, I can remove scope & rings in about 1 minute, and the irons are usable. The scope mount does not interfere with them when the rings are removed.

I figure if I break a scope, I can at least finish the hunt with the irons.

 

[Charles S]

Mulliga,

I appreciate your input. I agree that iron sights are not indestructible. I have had more problems with cheap iron sights than I have had with good optics.

I really like the Butler Creek flip up covers for use in rain and snow and I have yet to have any problems.

I really think the appeal of having back up sights on a rifle is the ability to continue a hunt in progress if the scope failed.

I do think that a backup scope is a lot less desirable because I would not trust it until I had shot the rifle. I realize that some mounts guarantee a retained zero, but it would take a lot of experience with them until I could trust them.

Like you point out; for the cost of a good scope and very good quick detachable mounts you are not too far from being ready to have a back up gun.

Dave R

Can you see your sights in the bottom of your visual field in your scope? If so does this bother you?

I really like the idea of backup sights like you have, but my only experiences with them have been with see through mounts, that I did not like, and with a setup similar to your, but they showed badly in the lower part of my field of view and I was not happy with them.

Thanks for the input and assistance.

Charles

 

[ProCharger]

I use to use a remington model 700 with irons on it and then put on a scope. When I put my first scope on I used see through rings.....shortly after that I scrapped that idea as I NEVER shoot open sights when I am hunting. I went to a tasco world class 3-9x50 and I had to remove the rear sight to make that scope fit. I do not see the front sight at all in the scope though.

FWIW every rifle I own now including my marlin 1895 45-70 have low profile scope mounts where irons are not accessable. Do I think its necessary to have irons? Of course not, but thats a matter of opinion. The last rifle I bought last week is a browning a-bolt .300 WSM and I opted to have no sights at all. To me its all a matter of opinion.

Brett

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I used to use the high peep sights so I could see through to the iron sights. I never really had a problem shooting this, but when I got a better scope, I put it on regular scope rings. A better cheek weld and it just plain old looks better.

For a backup, I tote my old .44 mag. I can use this on deer out to 50 yards if my rifle fails.

 

[Drue]

My general purpose hunting rifle is a Winchester M70 in .30-06 which has the factory iron sights and a Leupold 2.5-8 scope in Weaver mounts. At 2.5x the front sight shows as a small, dark area at the bottom of the field of view. It does not intefere with using the scope at all and, if the power is cranked up past 4x, it disappears completely. I have never had any problems with the scope but I feel better knowing that I can unscrew the thumbscrews on the scope rings and use the iron sights if I have to.

Several people that I know have had scope problems while on hunting trips, the scope fogging up or suddenly was out of zero. Weaver rings may be homely but they make swaping scopes easy if the replacement is already mounted in it's own rings, fitted to the rifle. One of these guys always carries a grid collimator with the spud for the rifle he is using. Once his rifle is zeroed, he sets up the collimator and makes a note of the position of the crosshairs on the grid. Once at the hunting area, he can check for zero by using the collimator and adjust to it if necessary. If he has to use his spare scope, he can use the collimator to check or adjust it's zero. This seems like a good idea and it works for him.

Drue

 

[Dave R]

Charles, no I cannot see my front post in the scope. It doesn't affect scope usage at all. Its the stock Rem700 front post.

 

[Charles S]

Thanks for the input. I think I will talk to my gunsmith about sights on my rifle, and I will check into QD rings.

Again, I appreciate your assistance and input.

Charles

 

[labgrade]

I lose the iron sights on every one of my rifles - I dunno why, but I've yet to ever have a failure of a scoped system after over 40 years of use - bangs, scrapes, & some fallings - snow, rain, etc.

I've just never had a scope to fail.

Always though that I hould keep the irons on, but never did, & have yet to have to remove the scope & use irons.

Too, proper cheek-weld, even with no sights at all, will allow a pretty decent hit to 50 yards, or so, with no sighting whatsoever - assuming you know your business.

 

[E=MC^2]

I've yet to ever have a failure of a scoped system after over 40 years of use - bangs, scrapes, & some fallings - snow, rain, etc.

I've found this is true with most quality brands of optics. Scope malfunctions have became more common in the past couple decades, it seems, but we must also realize where many are being produced and the quality of the materials used. For instance, these $29 scopes that were built using $10 in materials and $2 in labor. They are doomed from the start.

My optics spend 4 months a year on both guided and non-guided hunts. They see some of the most extreame terrain in the world and are loaded/transported/unloaded from airplanes and helecopters all the time. I cannot remember a problem that was ever related to the optics. I think that in most cases a scope is built to withstand a lifetime of use. It's just that some manufacturers have different ideas of what's encountered during this lifetime. The fogging mentioned earlier isn't common in good quality optics. I've seen it happen, but it's always been on rigs where the owner put more cash into the rifle and less into the optics. Also remember that a good set of mounts will remove one more factor related to optic malfunctions.

I've been using Swarovski for years without a single problem, ever. I've seen a bunch of other brands that are just as reliable. My power choice is 1.5-6X42. At low power it works excellant on charging game. At the highest power it provides excellant accuracy at 600yds.

The money you save on having a gunsmith install a set of iron sights could possibly get you to the next level of scope quality. There's never been a case where I wished I'd had iron sights.

 

[Dave R]

One reason I keep irons on mine is the possibility of having the hunt move from an open area into closer cover. Could happen if the game move into cover, or to track a wounded animal. Irons can be better than a scope in cover. I guess I'm just a belt & suspenders kind of guy.

 

[WYO]

Too, proper cheek-weld, even with no sights at all, will allow a pretty decent hit to 50 yards, or so, with no sighting whatsoever - assuming you know your business.

I was thinking the same thing, labgrade. I'll have to test that out sometime.

 

[labgrade]

"My power choice is 1.5-6X42. At low power it works excellant on charging game."

Me too. My HBAR flattop is fitted with a 1.5-6X42 & every serious big game rifle I have (other than for the Speed Goat-stuff - whole different ball game) uses either 1.5 or 2X as a minimum. Very fast target acquistition & much better light gathering for the gloomy parts of the dark timbers.

& do try it WYO. Yank a scope off sometime. 25 yards is likely a better range for a "first of," but I'll betcha that you can tag a paper plate almost right off - if you have made good friends with your rifle.

 

[Sarge111]

Reckon I'm old school...

but I can't even imagine owning a rifle without usable irons on it, scope or not. In fact, whenever a new rifle comes in around here, the first thing that happens is that the glass (if any) comes off, and the irons get a good, careful sighting in. When, and only when they are perfect, does a scope get added and sighted in just as carefully.

We missed a really nice 10-point buck about 5 years ago because a scope had gotten off by about 6" (high) @ 100 yards. I have had them fog up in changing weather, to the point where you wouldn't want to take a shot. Never again.

To me, the primary sight system is the irons, because that's what I'll fall back on when everything else goes wrong.

 

[labgrade]

Sarge,

I couldn't agree more except that my eyes no longer focus well enough with iron sights to make them any worth. Used to do the exact same thing. Anymore though, I can't focus well enough to use irons worth a da - I mean darn.

I've a beautiful Browning take-down .22 - one of the most sexy long guns I've ever held & it sports just iron & I can't shoot the thing for squat & makes me sick.

I've used the cantilever scope mount, yada on it - which seems to totally trash what that rifle's all about & it certainly isn't the rifle's problem. It shoots quite well - I don't.

Old eyes suck.

Oughta just give the thing to my oldest grandboy & be done with it. (sniff)

Back to the scope-thing though. I've hunted from the Everglades to Colorado - 4XW banging around/shifting weather from 70 to sub zero (in the same day), & have yet to have a scope change zero or fog up - except for one Weaver straight 12X when dialing in the objective at the range - gotta be honest, no? & then, the scope just turned to fog for about a minute till it all stabilized. Have it mounted now on my old .243 & dedicated strictly for Speed Goats - & not a problem since after about 10 years - go figure.

 

[Sarge111]

Labgrade...

I can sure understand that issue about not being able to see the sights, and in that case there's really little point in having them. I'm an old handgun hunter, which prejudices me in favor of irons from the outset; and in my own case, I can still see the sights ok- but it's the target that's a little fuzzy out past 50 yards these days.

I'm a big believer in not fixing something that works, and I believe you've found something that works for you.

 

[redneck2]

Having learned the hard way..

if you have a scope that fogs up, the best use for it is a paperweight, or taking up unused space in a landfill

good scope + good mounts = no problems

IMO..you have to beat a scope pretty hard to damage it, assuming it's a GOOD scope

I have two different rifles that have QD bases. If you want back-up, use the irons. Worked for the shooters up to maybe 50 years ago. YMMV

 

[labgrade]

Funny thing, redneck2.

This straight 12X scope - actually, strike that, it's another Weaver 3X9 that fogged up once when dialing in the AO ..... spaced that till just now & really not sure what rifle it's now mounted on - will have to check.

Anywho, the scope hasn't done it again since that first "crack/fog." & that rifle isn't really anything "dedicated" to.

The old .243 I mentioned is sporting that straight 12X which used to be on an older .22-250 - which now has a new 6-24X

.... now I've gotta go dig in the safe to see where that "cracked" scope is .... darn it all!