Backup/Secondary Iron Sights On Hunting Rifles

[mrh477]

Yes, I know this topic has been covered before. Yes, I know there is some dogmatic thinking/strong opinions on the subject. But the threads I saw on this in my search didn't have a poll or many folks that spoke up for the necessity of iron sights. So I want to see if there are any folks out there who have, in fact, taken the scope off of their hunting rifle to use the iron sights.

I'm getting ready to start building a 7x57 Mauser sporter and I'm debating the idea. I do like the option of having iron sights but I also admit that I've never actually used them while hunting. They would also add a significant cost to my build, which is the real issue. If cost were not an issue I'd probably add iron sights if, for nothing else, aesthetics.

But...cost is a consideration here so I digress. I don't think high quality optics fail often enough to necessitate a backup sighting system, and thus far I don't think that irons are an advantage in shorter ranges or brushy areas. To back up the latter idea, a couple years ago I shot a deer at 10 yards with a 3-9x40 set on 3, and the field of view was just fine. This was within 15 minutes of legal shooting time ending in the evening.

That all said, I could change my mind. Maybe it is more fun to hunt with iron sights when conditions allow, or maybe the insurance is worth it. What say the tribal elders?

 

[JeeperCreeper]

I've chosen not to run optics on guns that have iron sights. But this is in deep/old Appalachian forests, where shots are rarely 50 yards. I've used both scopes and irons and prefer irons for anything up to 100 yards.

I shoot irons better off hand. For whatever reason, I feel like scopes shake too much for me, even at low magnification (even beyond magnifying my current movements). This is evidenced by range testing for my individual shooting.

Also, I have really good eyes, which is a precursor to using irons. I have 20/10 vision in my right/dominant eye and 20/15 in my left. This makes reading tough at times, but basically I have binocular eyes hahaha. I think that is why I have a strong bias towards irons. And that's why I'll take a scope off my rifle.

Mix that is with frosty days where I don't feel like dealing with a foggy scope because I breathe too much...

 

[Newtosavage]

I voted no, but only because I haven't needed them YET. I am mounting a red dot on my Pearson rail for my Win. 30-30, but I made sure the backup "irons" were on before I mounted the optic. If I was going to shoot any gun with irons, it would be that one.

 

[adcoch1]

All of my hunting guns minus one has irons even if I use an optic. I do pull a scope or use a different gun when hunting in the thick stuff, but I love open sights that can't fog up in the rainforest conditions I hunt in most of the time...

 

[js8588]

You're building a gun in a classic cartridge. It needs classic iron sights.

 

[Robert]

They are not needed and if the cost is that much higher than that would do you for me. My rifle has irons on it, but I have never used them. With my scope mounted as low as possible, as it should be, my irons are useless. And unless you are going to carry the tools to remove the optic if it falls how would you get to the irons?

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

My backup sights are on a handgun.

 

[Armored farmer]

I voted no.
Ive never had a scope fail me.
My favorite hunting guns dont have irons.

 

[Kingcreek]

I didn't vote.
"Backup" implies a redundant system. I have rifles with iron sights and rifles with optics. I no longer have rifles with both, since neither system is likely to fail.
Sometimes I like iron sights and the rifle and situation fits. Sometimes I want a scope or RD and don't want irons.

 

[chicharrones]

You're building a gun in a classic cartridge. It needs classic iron sights.

I'd have a hard time myself not installing iron sights on a gun from an era that iron sights were common.

 

[mrh477]

You're building a gun in a classic cartridge. It needs classic iron sights.

I'd have a hard time myself not installing iron sights on a gun from an era that iron sights were common.

This argument is honestly the way I'm leaning. Pragmatic? No. But aesthetics is clearly more of a priority than pragmatism given that I'm building a Mauser 98 sporter in 7x57. If I go with NECG sight components (best-looking new components I can find) I'll probably be spending $300 or so by the time the sights are on the rifle. It's just hard to accept that kind of cost for small, seemingly-simple pieces of metal. I'm not in a rush on this project, though, so I'll probably keep my eyes on the used parts market for a while before committing to anything.

 

[54Hawkin]

I've never had a scope fail me, so it depends on the rifle. If you are building a custom rifle and have a certain vision for that rifle, the follow your heart.

 

[Art Eatman]

Do whatever you want to, but I'm another guy who never used irons on a centerfire hunting rifle.

 

[chicharrones]

Yes--chose iron sights over a scope based on the situation

This was my pick because back when I did hunt, the situation was that I had good vision and I didn't own a scope.

If I were to hunt again, a magnified optic or red dot would be required gear for me now.

But that doesn't help the dilemma of putting expensive sights on a classic customized sporter. Unless a classic sporter is being built for economy, I'd be compelled to install iron sights. I'd even use them on occasion just to say I did.

 

[Tiro Finale]

I do like having irons available. My Mini-14, for example, wears a Bushnell TRS25 and the factory irons. It's nice to know that, if my red dot goes out or I break it somehow, I have a backup option.

In general, I don't use magnified optics a lot. I don't really shoot outside 100 yards, so a red dot is usually sufficient.

 

[someguy2800]

I prefer one or the other, not both. I think irons on a scoped rifle just clutters up the gun and I've never had a situation where two sets of sights would have been useful to me. Maybe if I was going to on some type of extended trip in the wilderness I would want them for backup.

 

[Risky buisness]

I have had optics fail. And many miles back to my camp to retrive my backup iron sighted rifle convinced me to utilize backup irons. With the options of quick detach mounts it simplfies tha issue greatly. I have, just for the reason to have backups, started hunting with my M1A, whos quick detach mounts make the issue null for me. I would incourage you to add the sight system that your mauser wore originally and augment it with a usable optic

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You missed one choice -- "No, but I have them, just in case I need them."

 

[Dr.Rob]

My all around hunting rifle has no iron sights. I've had a scope fail on a hunt before. It's no fun.

Usually have a back up scoped rifle in camp and a shotgun with irons in my jeep as well as a .44 on my hip.

 

[FL-NC]

Only one of my "hunting rifles" has back up irons. Its an AR with 4x ACOG as a primary and magpuls as backup.

 

[mshootnit]

voted no.
I have dropped a VariXII scoped rifle rom 3.5 feet straight down onto pavement and zero didn't move at all.
No need for irons here.

 

[jmr40]

I used to worry about such things, but no irons for me on a bolt action. I have several lever actions with irons to scratch that itch. I've been hunting since the early 1970's and I've never once had a scope fail to work and I've never found a situation where a scope wasn't better. Even up close. Most shots are taken in the 1st 5-10 minutes of legal shooting time, or the last 5-10 minutes. Even at 25 yards you can't see the iron sights to use them at those times in thick woods, you can see with optics. And as long as you keep the magnification reasonable scopes are faster to get on target for quick snap shots.

I don't spend money on high end scopes, but I don't buy cheap scopes either. I have however, had iron sights go down on my lever actions twice and ruin a hunt. Buy a decent mid level scope or better and learn how to use it and you'll never need irons.

 

[30Cal]

If it's stocked for shooting with a scope, then I wouldn't bother with irons. They're going to be hard to shoot with.

My old WinM70 Fwt has irons and an aftermarket Monte Carlo stock. I can't even get to the iron sights in winter clothing.

 

[someguy2800]

That's why I like one or the other. If you make the comb low enough to actually use the iron sights you've ruined it for shooting with a scope in my opinion. I don't have a scope on any of my rifles that have a low comb.

The worst example of this is a lever rifle with tall see through mounts. I really hate that combo.

 

[BigBore44]

Well I see a problem with iron sights secondary to optics. Supposing the animal doesn’t bang/flop.

1. How do you know the scope failed and you didn’t just miss?

2. If your scope failed because you dropped it on your way into the woods, how do you know your front sight wasn’t knocked off as well?

3. See through scope mounts look hideous.

4. It’s a rare occasion that you shoot at an animal, miss, and the animal hangs around while you figure out you missed and then come to the realization that you need to use your backup sights, and gives you a second shot.