Scope vs. Iron sights - Practical accuracy

[dave3006]

When standing or from a field kneeling position, do you shoot your bolt action rifle with a scope more accurately than an iron sighted rifle?

I have an M1 Garand and a Remington 700 with a Leupold 3.5x10x40 scope. From kneeling or standing (not bench), I shoot the Garand more accurately at targets around 100 yards. The magnification of the scope actually makes me perceive the wobble in my sight pattern more than with iron sights.

Anyone else experience this?

 

[Molon Labe]

A scope has two things going for it:

1. It puts the sight and target in the same focal plane.
2. Some scopes give you magnification.

#1 (which is considered more important than #2) is only valuable if you are incapable of achieving proper sight picture using open sights. #2 is only valuable if you cannot see the target using open sights.

If you are capable of achieving proper sight picture using open sights, and if you can see the target, then a scope doesn't buy you anything. In fact, it can actually detract from accuracy for a variety of reasons, one of which you named.

 

[Art Eatman]

Wobble is wobble. You're gonna wobble as much with irons as with a scope. You're gonna wobble as much on 2X as on 14X. The less the magnification, the less you notice the wobble. If you don't notice the wobble, you're not as distracted by it, which is a help.

A scope allows greater precision in shot placement. That's why benchrest guys can get those tiny groups.

I've found it easier to not have to line up a bunch of things when making a quick shot when hunting. That is, I don't have to find the rear sight and the front sight and Bambi, all at the same time. I just put the crosshairs where they're supposed to be and pull trigger.

That's the gist of it all, anyhow...

Art

 

[birddog]

I'll second everything Art said.

Having hunted extensively with both iron sights, scopes and red-dots, I just don't hunt with iron-sights anymore.

 

[Dave R]

I have a couple of rifles I shoot with and without scopes. A K-31, and a Rem700. I 'can' get just as much accuracy with the irons as with the scope, but its harder to do consistently.

Basically, if you can get a CONSISTENT sight picture with the irons, you should be able to shoot as well. If the rifle is pointing to the same place, then the bullet should go to the same place (within the limits of its accuracy) right?

The problem is getting a consistent sight picture at a small target far away. How do you get a consistent sight picture when the front sight obscures the target, or most of it?

My trick to getting good groups with the irons is to use a big enough bullseye and to "dot the i" consistently. That means the sights have to be adjusted to "dot the i" properly.

So for shooting at 200 yards, I use an 8" bull. I can dot properly with that, and hold consistenty. I can often get about a 4" group at 200, which is about the accuracy limit of the rifle. When I put a scope on it, the groups are about the same.

But in the field, without the crutch of a perfect 8" bull, I could surely do better with the scope. No way I could get a good sight picture on a Prairie Dog at 200 yards with iron sights.

 

[KurtC]

Shooting with aperature iron sights is not much different from using a 1.5x or 2x scope. Both can produce superb accuracy. I grew up using only iron sights, and as a result my only scopes are low powered with post & crosshair reticles.

Overpowered scopes can be detrimental to offhand shooting if you try to compensate for wobble. A 1.5-6x scope is nice for offhand shooting, as you can start off on low power and work your way up as you learn to ignore the wobble effect and concentrate on the basic fundamentals.

 

[jefnvk]

I think that part of the problem with irons is, the sight blade is going to be wider than a crosshair, thus covering much more of the target. At least to me, that hurts in trying to aim at the exact same place everytime.

 

[Pulsar]

i perfer open sight to 150yds from there i like a scope for better placement
and i shoot better with open sight at moving game

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I have an M1 Garand and a Remington 700 with a Leupold 3.5x10x40 scope. From kneeling or standing (not bench), I shoot the Garand more accurately at targets around 100 yards. The magnification of the scope actually makes me perceive the wobble in my sight pattern more than with iron sights.

The Garand is a superb design to shoot from the offhand or kneeling position -- its muzzle-heavy balance (and its weight) makes it "hang" and dampen out the wobbles. So it really isn't a good test to compare other rifles to the Garand, regardless of sights.

Yes, a scope will magnify the wobbles. But with practice that's not a disadvantage -- notice how silhouette shooters (who shoot only offhand) always use scopes (and pretty high power, too).

My advice is always to get a good .22 (mine is a Kimber M82) and a couple of cases of .22 LR and practice, practice, practice from the standing position only. You should also make it a rule to work the bolt from the shoulder, lowering the rifle only when the magazine is empty. You'd be amazed how this improves your shooting with centerfire rifles for hunting.

 

[Crosshair]

I am VERY nearsighted and I have trouble using a peep sight. (Can't hit crap with them. ) Open sights like the SKS work well enough, but a scope reduces eyestrain for me. I used to be good with open sights back when I was still in gradeschool and my eyesight was not as bad.

 

[klover]

I can out shoot my sks with reciever cover mounted 3X (Wolf ammo) with a Marlin .44 buckhorn sight (Mag Tech ammo).Or with my M48, or with my M38, or with most decent rifles. Still love the SKS though.

Usually I find a scope helps. Not to be neglected are scout mounted scopes.

 

[JohnKSa]

My gun club has rifle competitions.

When the competitions involve bench-rested shooting, we have separate categories for iron sights and scopes.

When the competitions involve only offhand shooting, we combine the categories because the scores have made it clear that the scoped rifle shooters have no advantage.

Now, that's in good light shooting at easily visible targets. If the targets were harder to see or if the light were poor, I'd expect the scope users to have some advantage.

If you can see your target and your sights, and you're shooting offhand, iron sights are just as good as a scope.

 

[chopinbloc]

one of the problems with scopes is that in dim light, they often don't gather enogh light for the target to be visible. this isn't as much of a problem for iron sights. i'm a strong believer in using see through mounts or optics that allow co-witnessing. iron sights are much less fragile and less prone to failure. go figure, steel is stronger than glass.with an iron sight on a quality rifle, if you can see your target you can hit it. however a scope can help you find small targets that don't contrast well, like bunnies in the desert. of course as soon as that sucker starts running your scope is all but useless. that's why a lot of folks will use the scope to find the critter and shoot if it stays still, the irons to land a round on or near it to stop it (bunnies usually freeze for a second if you shoot close to 'em) and the scope to actuall land the killing blow. look at pictures of troops in oef and oif, many have scopes, many have refles sights and many have nothing but irons. the one common denominator is that none, with the exception of snipers, do not have iron sights.

 

[Steve Smith]

Kinda depends on what you're trying to hit and how far away it is...AND the light conditions.

If my tartget is sized so that I can choose which part of it I want to hit, and I can see it well with my naked eye, I can shoot very accurately and quite easily at up to 600 yards with iron sights. However, using the NTIT (Rattle Battle) match as a comparison, that has a human sized target and the little fellow is about a third of the width of my front sight at 600 yards. Can I hit him a hot during the NTIT? Yes. Is it hard? Yes. I think it would be even HARDER to do this with a scope, but I think it would be easier to put ONE shot through his eyeball.

 

[one-shot-one]

just me

i shoot better (tighter groups) and am quicker on target with a scope, i can shoot open sites but if i am trying for accuracy scope works better for me wether rested or free handed.

 

[JNewell]

I shoot the scoped guns more accurately now, 45+ years out, but it has nothing to do with the hardware. I can manage the sight picture better at this point in my life with only one focal plane to deal with, rather than the three that iron sights require. I will add that aperture sights still work pretty well, since the aperture acts like closing the diaphram on a camera lens (increases depth of field, or the zone of what appears to be acceptably sharp).

 

[115grfmj]

When I found that...

you could actually shoot accurately with aperature sights, I bought
one for my marlin .357 rifle. With the .50 diameter aperature, I get good
sight picture, have no problem in low light, and can get 1.5-2" groups at
100yds, I shoot around 3-4" at 200yds. For me thats all I need. Ive
also found that I aquire running game better with the aperature, than a scope.

Scopes do have some use I think for more precise work, and smaller
calibers like my marlin 22lr. I use it for squirrels wood chucks etc, and
shot placement on a minute scale to match the games size is important.

Bottom line.....they both have there place.

 

[Art Eatman]

As I've said before, the great majority of my serious shooting has been for hunting, and mostly deer hunting.

Early, early morning, or at last light, nekkid eyebone--as with iron sights--it's a deer. Look through a scope, and that deer is actually a cactus.

Or a fella...

Art

 

[JohnKSa]

Art,

No question that scopes give a significant advantage in low light. But I'd like to point out respectfully that your example is more of an argument for using binoculars than it is for using a scope. By the time you've identified a "deer" as a human using a rifle scope you've already run badly afoul of basic gun safety rules.