Sticking Iron sights on a bolt action.

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nameless_Hobo

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
191
Is it possible to put a set of back-up irons on a commercial bolt action that doesn't come with them stock, without doing heavy modification?

I've always had guns with them on it, I'm a bit paranoid of only having a scope to rely on.
 
Why? Is it for dangerous game? Can you shoot long range as accurately with a high performance like a 30-06 with iron as with a good scope? IMHO spend the extra money you planned for the iron on a good quality scope and sleep good tonight.
 
Nameless,
+1 on getting a good scope and don't worry about it. I hunted with (Leupold) scoped rifles from 1964 until about 1995 and then switched to (Leupold) scoped .44 Mag and .22 LR pistols. Never had a problem with scope on any of my rifles or pistols in the hunting field or on the range.

Good shooting and be safe.
LB
 
I am also interested in possibly putting iron sights on a new rifle.

Why? Is it for dangerous game?
Click to expand...

Yes -- if it's a rifle for survival or self-defense.

I would buy a $244 Mossberg ATR-100 in a heartbeat if it had a simple set of iron sights. The $300 version with a cheap scope does nothing for me...and I already have a nicely scoped deer hunting rig -- which I use less and less each year.

So does anyone know a good, simple method for adding iron sites to the current crop of inexpensive-yet-accurate bolt actions?
 
Yes

Most gunsmiths can do the job. It will be expensive, probably more than the decent scope trstafford is recommending. You may be money ahead to sell what you have and buy a new or used rifle with factory iron sites. For several reasons of my own I like them too. On three rifles, a pre-64 mod 70 .270, a rem 700 .300RUM, and a rem 700 .416 rem. mag. have iron sites and scopes with QD rings. Up till now I've had no real need for the setup but then again I've had no need for the CCW I've carried for almost 40 years either.
 
Nameless

I'm setting up a "goto" rifle that is a bolt also. The rifle that I choose will get a Williams or Lyman peep mounted on it with the needed front sight. My gun smith can put them on for around $50. I'm thinking others can also.

The main expense is the sights themselves. Look to spend about $100 for a set of good reciever sights.

So for about $150-$175 is what it should cost for the setup.

BTW the Mossberg ATR and 4X4 rifles are NICE weapons. I wish they came in a left hand version.

Jerry
 
its actually not that expensive. for a front sight you simply silver solder a berrell band front sight and for the rear you cold get one silvered onto the top of the reciver or do a new england custom sight that mounts dirrectly on the scope mount.
 
There are a number of companies making front ramp bases which attach either by small screws or soldering, and you can then get a receiver sight like the inexpensive Williams models fitted, or perhaps open sights on a screw-on or solder-on base. I'd be surprised if you couldn't pick up all the components fairly cheaply at a gunshow and then it is a straightforward job to get them fitted.

Last time I had it done the ramp, foresight, WGRS receiver sight (from a gunshow) and all the fitting (soldering on the front, drilling and tapping and screwing on the rear) cost me less than even a fairly cheap scope. That was here in the land of Oz of course, but I doubt all this would be dearer there.

I like having metallic sights, preferably receiver sight and a front post, for rainy weather and as a back up, and some of my rifles have nothing else. They add almost no weight and as a back-up are cheap insurance, and receiver sights in particular are quite effective enough for most hunting.
 
receiver sights in particular are quite effective enough for most hunting.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Most people aren't aware of how accurate a receiver sight is. Much faster than a scope, and accurate enough for hunting. To me scopes are for target shooting.

I prefer a Lyman receiver sight, with a William's Firesight on the front.
 
I guess the rifle makers just want to save a buck on installing sights, something I don't prescribe to personally.:confused:

Hunting in PA, lots of scrub and most shots are 100 yards or less, I have been using nothing but irons for a while with no problem.

I have an older Ruger M-77 (.308) that had factory sights, the newer ones I have seen don't.
 
XS Sights makes backup ghost ring sights for several types of rifles. These can be installed in addition to scope mounts and the gunsmithing required should be minimal. ec-10 already posted the link.
 
Something to consider: a gun with a stock designed specifically for a scope might be hard to shoot with low iron sights.

Note the difference between the Remington 700BDL (multi-sight design) and CDL (scope design) stocks, for example. There's a reason for the different drop.

smsil_700bdl.jpg

smsil_700cdl.jpg


Then look at stocks designed to work best with irons, on the Marlin 1894 and the WW II Enfield No4 Mk1:
photo_1894.jpg

full.jpg


This doesn't mean you shouldn't do it; it does mean you should consider what sights to use and what you expect from the rifle if you have to use them.
 
From time to time, I talk about my Savage Model 11GL in .243Winchester... it has sights on the barrel. The rear sight is a cheap-o Williams, but it works pretty well. I have a scope on it for shooting paper/clays/rocks on the 100yd berm... I did that to see how I could get it to group. It's a 40 year old fixed 4X in see-through mounts. My beef with it is I don't know how the higher mount effects the extended trajectory if I were to shoot out to 300yds. I've talked with a gunsmith about mounting the Williams Foolproof with target knobs and I'm probably going to get that done soon. I've been hunting and shooting with aperture sights on various rifles for several years and haven't felt the need for a scope.

Editted to add: one of the aperture-sighted rifles I have experience with is the British Enfield No.4Mk2. I really like mine. Ammo can be a mite expensive; that's why most every .303British thread turns into a handloading thread.
 
Shouldn't hurt anything at 300 yards.

Look at the AR-15. Shoots fine at 300.

stag_arms_20.gif


The reason people bash see-through scope mounts is because some of them, at least, have problems holding zero AFAIK, not because a little more height over the barrel matters so much at 300 yards.

People shoot with some enormous scopes. The centerline of some of them might be higher than yours, even if they're mounted almost touching the barrel.
 
Can you shoot long range as accurately with a high performance like a 30-06 with iron as with a good scope?
Click to expand...

The standard Marine Corps qualification course calls for 10 shots from the prone position at the 500 yard line. Thanks in large part to the stability of the prone, those shots were typically the easiest of the entire qualification process. If 500 yards isn't long range, I don't know what is!

I am with the OP in that I like iron sights. It's not that I don't trust scopes or anything like that, it's just that I enjoy shooting with iron sights. Really, it just boils down to a personal preference as opposed to any well-thought out list of reasons. I would also point out that a lot of people couldn't care less about being able to shoot long range, if for no other reason than not having a place to do so. My buddy is into long range shooting, and I will take shots with him for fun, but his interest in that aspect of rifle shooting far outweighs mine. Because I know I can hit out to 500 yards with irons, thats about as far as I am interested in shooting, scoped or otherwise.
 
The standard Marine Corps qualification course calls for 10 shots from the prone position at the 500 yard line
Click to expand...
I was shooting at a range, 200 yards, with my father sometime in the 70's. He with a pre war 70, .270 iron sighted. Me with a pre-64 .270 with a lyman Alaskan 4x. His groups were only slightly larger than mine. Very slightly. I made some smart-alecky comment about "luck" and was immediately informed that in 1929 when he qualified in the USMC it was 1000 yds. prone and the target was about the size of a 55 gal. barrel. I was then told to practice a little more and get rid of "that scope"
I don't know if he was a natural or the USMC simply developed exceptional rifleman. Either way, 500 or 1000, it can be done with regularity with proper training.
 
Look at the rifles of the past

Virtually without exception they come with iron sights. By the 50s you could get varmint models that didn't have sights, only drilled and tapped for scope bases. By the 70s, it was about half and half, some models came with sights, some didn't. Today, rifle makers just generally assume that rifles in certain classes of calibers are going to be scoped, so putting sights on them is just a waste of money. Other calibers are still sighted as the standard, big bore rifles, for one.

Scopes can and do fail, and accidents also happen. To me, a set of sights on a game rifle is just something that ought to be there. Even if you can't drill tacks at 500 yards with the irons, you can still nail a deer/elk etc, at a distance.

Considering the expense and the time of a big game hunt, isn't having sights you can use if your scope gets broke worth the trouble? It is to me.
 
Considering the expense and the time of a big game hunt, isn't having sights you can use if your scope gets broke worth the trouble? It is to me.
Click to expand...

I know some folks are going to look at me sideways for this, but I'd do like I normally would and just use iron sights to begin with. It won't cost me the time of snatching the (hypothetically damaged) scope off. Like I say, I just get along with irons better than scopes anyway, so rhetorically, why should I bother with a scope.
 
I know some folks are going to look at me sideways for this, but I'd do like I normally would and just use iron sights to begin with. It won't cost me the time of snatching the (hypothetically damaged) scope off. Like I say, I just get along with irons better than scopes anyway, so rhetorically, why should I bother with a scope.
Click to expand...

+1, well said.
 
Here is a simple idea for back up Iron sights.
New England Custom Gun offers a simple rear sight that attaches to a standard Weaver base.

They also offer barrel band front sights that can be silver sweated in place instead of drilling and tapping for the front sight or cutting a dovetail.

You will have to do the math to figure out exactly what height front sight you will need,once that is done you install the front, install the rear on the Weaver base and shoot the sights into point of aim point of impact.

Remove the rear and store it with your gear until you need it and reinstall your scope.

If you are the handy type and have access to a propane or MAPP gas torch and a bubble level you can do this little job.

Cost of the sights will be about $160.00 plus your time and these are some of the very best iron sights made today.
http://www.newenglandcustomgun.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Bolt Action w/ Iron Sights
Replies
5
Views
785
slopemeno
S
D
  • Locked
New bolt actions with iron sights?
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
bubbaturbo
B
Gunsby_Blazen
  • Locked
Bolt action with iron sights
Replies
21
Views
2K
aspade
A
S
  • Locked
Confesions of a new bolt action addict
Replies
11
Views
1K
ojibweindian
ojibweindian
A
  • Locked
Stainless bolt-action w/ iron sights?
Replies
1
Views
569
ArmedBear
A
Back
Top