Why so few hunting rifles with sights?

Varminterror said:

Lots of hold-outs still swear by outmoded tactics and tools, but the relative success of limited options of the past doesn’t negate the reality better options exist today.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not one of them. Every new rifle I buy today gets 2 things right off the bat:

1. A good sling
2. A good optic

For that matter, so do all my old rifles, including those with iron sights

I wish more rifles came with iron sights however it really depends on what you do. Just about the only budget friendly hunting rifles with them are lever actions and the savage hog hunter if you can handle the weight. I have an old savage 110 I inherited from my grandfather that he took the front sight off of that i plan on re-adding to that rifle to use as my irons hunter. But it is a matter of market, people who need to shoot long range hence purchase bolt action rifles also tend to need optics to see and hit as accurately as they'd like at that distance. People who hunt in the thicket that are close enough for irons can also benefit from the style and calibers of lever action rifles.

The simple answer is that manufactures build what benefits their profit margin the most. Today it's rifles that accept scopes and they aren't going to tie up money making iron sighted rifles that few people buy. In the old days you had to spend extra money to put a scope on most rifles. Today you have to do that for iron sights.

I deer hunt in thick cover where I've never taken a deer further than 40 yards, and I always thought I'd never need or use an optic since magnification isn't important at those distances.. When I upgraded from my 12ga slug gun to a lever action, I thought decent irons were important to have. Then on a whim I put a red-dot on the gun, and never took it off. I have good eyes still, but why not give myself the fast aiming advantage of a red dot sight?

It makes even less sense on a bolt action that's typically going to be used at moderate to long distances.

I too am an Iron Sight fan. Being left handed it's even harder to find LH bolt actions that have iron sights.
Really the only game in town is the Ruger Scout Rifle.

After picking up a LH Ruger Scout Rifle, I just wasn't happy with it - the action is horrible. So I had Savage assemble a Left Hand Scout Rifle for me. Much nicer rifle / action.

Savage:


Ruger:

9x56MS said:

I must respectfully disagree with your first premise. Having grown up with firearms and hunters I do not know a single one that demanded manufacturers remove them. They removed them because it was cheaper to manufacture a rifle without them.

Click to expand...

I was a voracious reader of gun magazines. One of the topics being discussed in articles & letter to the editor was why gunmakers still put iron sights on bolt action rifles hunting rifles.

It was also the time when gunshops were a place to hang out. Growing up, my father took me to several gunshops in Southern California where many topics were discussed. One was why do gunmakers still put iron sights on bolt action hunting rifles.

Of course, there was always the counter argument- "What if your scope fogs up?" and "Dangerous game rifles must have express sights."

Thinking back on it, no one ever wondered why they still put iron sights on pump actions or self loaders.

Flexibility, two different scopes for each, one scout mounted, the other conventional and iron sights accessible by Warne quick release tings, what is not to like:

Apertures - are 1x Optics.

GR

drobs said:

I too am an Iron Sight fan. Being left handed it's even harder to find LH bolt actions that have iron sights.
Really the only game in town is the Ruger Scout Rifle.

After picking up a LH Ruger Scout Rifle, I just wasn't happy with it - the action is horrible. So I had Savage assemble a Left Hand Scout Rifle for me. Much nicer rifle / action.

Savage:

Ruger:
View attachment 981538

Click to expand...

I have to agree with you all except that small engine piston they call a bolt handle. Definitely don’t have to worry about getting enough purchase on it that’s for sure.

bassjam said:

I deer hunt in thick cover where I've never taken a deer further than 40 yards, and I always thought I'd never need or use an optic since magnification isn't important at those distances.. When I upgraded from my 12ga slug gun to a lever action, I thought decent irons were important to have. Then on a whim I put a red-dot on the gun, and never took it off. I have good eyes still, but why not give myself the fast aiming advantage of a red dot sight?

It makes even less sense on a bolt action that's typically going to be used at moderate to long distances.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I have a Burris FastFire II on my Marlin 1894 and I love it. My only rifle with iron sights is my M1 Garand. I've been wanting an Utlimak rail and scout scope for the Garand for years, but other projects always seem to come first.

My reason for wanting the rail/scope for the Garand is relevant to this thread. The first year I took it hunting the heavy/wet snow kept clogging the aperture and I had to blow on it to clear the snow. I didn't like making that much noise. Second year I took it hunting I almost lost a nice buck because I couldn't see what I was aiming at in the very low light. The buck appeared at dawn. Everything, the deer, trees, ground were almost the same color, just different shades. I could see the buck plain as day 20 yards from my stand, but I couldn't discern what I was looking at through the aperture. I had to keep lifting my head to look over the sight. The buck looked like he was about to break from walking to trotting and I was going to lose him, so I made my best judgment and fired. Got him in the liver and recovered him 80 yards away. After that, I decided that I would not deer hunt with irons again, unless I didn't mind letting a really nice deer walk.

9x56MS said:

I have to agree with you all except that small engine piston they call a bolt handle. Definitely don’t have to worry about getting enough purchase on it that’s for sure.

Click to expand...

I concur! Not a fan of that bolt handle. I may look into swapping it down the line. Savage used a LH Desert Tactical for the action.

Those few of us who still enjoy iron sights tend to insist on high quality. That means that even on rifles fitted with irons at the factory, we still are going to install aftermarket sights at home. So the factory really has little reason to install them in the first place, and even enthusiasts would probably rather not pay for factory irons they're just going to throw away.

Garandimal said:

Apertures - are 1x Optics.

View attachment 981549



​

GR

Click to expand...

Nice rifle!

Open/iron sights do not gather light like a 1X or even a 2.5X scope. Which is helpful in the twilight hours. The wider my pupil, the fuzzier my vision is especially up close.

I have a couple of Ruger Model 77 bolt-action rifles (an RS International and an RS MKII) and a Savage Model 116 SE that came with factory irons. Personally, I wish all of my rifles had irons but when I asked the Williams Gun Sight Company how much it would cost to install their open sights on two early Ruger Model 77s I have, I found the cost to be prohibitive (over $100.00 each, and that was twenty years ago).
I understand that most folks don't use iron sights for their primary aiming uses but I prefer having a backup to my scope should it fail, no matter how unlikely such an event might happen. Too, I'm old enough to still think a bolt-action sporting rifle looks "wrong" without them.

So who buys new rifles ? It's like handgun with non-steel frames, easier to manufacture, and if the public buys them.....

I've hunted with iron sights before but I don't think I've done it since I was a teenager. All my hunting rifles have scopes on them now. I have three lever centerfire rifles with iron sights but I don't hunt with them, plus some 22s. I do also have iron sights on my AR but they're secondary to an optic.

For hunting or defense, some sort of optic on a rifle is just better. On a bolt hunting gun I'd rather have it clean with no iron sights at all.

I haven't had iron sights on my CF hunting rifles for 50 years or so. If weather is too bad for a scope, it's too bad for me!

I've had irons on a few .22LR rifles and still do, but but about all are receiver sights.

IdaD said:

For hunting or defense, some sort of optic on a rifle is just better.

Click to expand...

A scoped sight on a rifle is not necessarily "just better". It might depend on the kind of hunting you do when a quick-handling rifle with a peep sight is "just better" than a rifle with glass, no matter how low-powered the scope might be. Much of my big game hunting is for whitetails in the heavy cover a Michigan cedar swamp affords, offering relatively few opportunities for shots approaching 100 yards or so. I have four rifles I use for this kind of hunting habitat, all equipped with a Williams "FoolProof" aperture sight: an early Remington Model 760, chambered in .30-06 Springfield; a Winchester Model 94, chambered in .30-30 Winchester; a Winchester Model 1886 "Extra-Light Weight", chambered in .45-70 Government and a Savage Model 99, chambered in .358 Winchester.
I use scoped rifles for the majority of my hunting but in my opinion, based on my experience, there are a lot of times when an iron-sighted rifle, especially one with a peep sight, is just better than one wearing a scope.

SwampWolf said:

A scoped sight on a rifle is not necessarily "just better". It might depend on the kind of hunting you do when a quick-handling rifle with a peep sight is "just better" than a rifle with glass, no matter how low-powered the scope might be. Much of my big game hunting is for whitetails in the heavy cover a Michigan cedar swamp affords, offering relatively few opportunities for shots approaching 100 yards or so. I have four rifles I use for this kind of hunting habitat, all equipped with a Williams "FoolProof" aperture sight: an early Remington Model 760, chambered in .30-06 Springfield; a Winchester Model 94, chambered in .30-30 Winchester; a Winchester Model 1886 "Extra-Light Weight", chambered in .45-70 Government and a Savage Model 99, chambered in .358 Winchester.
I use scoped rifles for the majority of my hunting but in my opinion, based on my experience, there are a lot of times when an iron-sighted rifle, especially one with a peep sight, is just better than one wearing a scope.

Click to expand...

I have peep sights on a Winchester 94 and they're accurate and I like them a lot (and the rifle in general, it's one of my favorites). A decent red dot is still faster, though, at least for me, and it would probably work really well on a hunting rifle in the environment you're describing.

Red dot sight is definitely faster than an aperture sight- including ghost ring aperture sights.

Mr_Flintstone said:

I realize that most hunters (especially those out West) need optics for those long range shots, but I’m sure there are others like me that would like a set of iron sights on a hunting rifle. I’ve looked around, and the only options out there go for premium prices... especially now. Why have American gun manufacturers removed iron sights (even as an option) for most of their offerings? I know that the market is the driving factor, but seriously, why no options at all? I’d like to see an inexpensive rifle like the Savage Axis or Thompson/Center Venture with irons on the market.

Click to expand...

Inexpensive, but reliable scopes.

Just buy surplus, most of them come with irons.

danez71 said:

I remember ppl saying similar about the PC9 for yrs until it turned out to be a big hit and the line even expanded to fill the pent up market demand that supposedly didn't exist.

Click to expand...

The analogy of the Ruger PC9 and it’s disappearance then reemergence simply isn’t apt for the disappearance of iron sights as “standard” on bolt action rifles. Iron sights have steadily lost favor over time, with only the scant niches still desiring them - certainly not large enough market to support inclusion on standard rifle offerings. Alternatively, PC9 was produced, effectively in entirety during the federal assault weapons ban, which truthfully preceded the emergence of the AR-15’s popularity in the US. At a time when options for semiauto rifles were relatively scarce, it was a viable product - but it was challenging to sustain marketshare when the ban sunsetted and AR’s began flooding the market. Fast forward a decade, AR9’s gained popularity in a market already saturated by AR-15’s, AND more localized State Assault Weapons Bans drove interest back into PCC’s like the PC9. There’s history of won and lost police contracts mixed in there as well, failing to sustain the original production series, but overall, these were much more fickle and volatile market trends than what we see as a consistent recession of interest in iron sights. 20yrs ago, red dots and LPVO’s really weren’t on the scene, nor were FFP optics, illuminated reticles, large FOV optics, etc. But today, all of these are standard fare. What we can pick up today as sighting options far overshadow any era of the past, and there’s no putting that cat back into the bag. We’ve even seen back-up sights largely fall out of favor - a decade ago, BUIS’s were highly recommended on AR’s, which evolved into inclusion of offset or scope-saddled RDS’s... but today, the general consensus finds the redundancy simply isn’t fruitful, as LPVO’s have become widely available which are robust and versatile enough for most applications. Short of a federal ban on magnified optics, there’s no reason to think the shrinking balloon of iron sight popularity is instead a swinging pendulum.

I expect a huge part of it is that decent scopes have become pretty cheap. When I was a kid we didn't really have any Chinese options that were half the price of a Burris or Bushnell. Even not-so-decent scopes are probably better than irons to someone that only shoots 1 box of ammo a week before season opens and then a round or two to fill a tag. For rifle makers saving $1 of cost is probably $5/$10 of extra profit. Since most people don't care about and won't use irons, the gunmaker can omit the sights and keep the gun at the same price, pocketing the difference.

As for me, I'm 51 years old. I've been nearsighted all my life and now I can add astigmatism and all the expected age related issues. Irons are useless to me at rifle ranges, and I'm about ready to get a pistol slide milled out for RDS,too.