Why so few hunting rifles with sights?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr_Flintstone

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
1,437
Location
Eastern KY
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.
 
My suspicion is that it's the same issue with in-flight meals on airlines: the current market seems to prefer cheap over full-featured. And because most new firearms are bought 'off-the-rack' instead of custom ordered, there isn't much incentive for the manufacturers to offer iron sights as a normal factory option, particularly on economy rifles. The exception is traditional lever-action designs and some single shots.

Personally I think the trend is unfortunate -- a good receiver-mounted aperture sight is a fine choice on a bolt action hunting rifle.
 
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.
Simply because the market wouldnt support it. If theres no monetary gain then theres no incentive for them to add (or retain) a feature.

Well for those of us in or past our mid 40's, scopes eliminate the fuzzy rear or fuzzy front sight and fuzzy target, "one or the other" dilemma. Your focal length now becomes the eye relief, and the lens on the back is adjustable by a few diopters for those like me who are very nearsighted.
Story of my life right there.....
Ive never been able to see iron sights well, and opens are all but useless for anything requiring precision. Im honestly about as good with a big handgun as i am with an open sighted rifle.
 
Compare the drop of the comb on a lever action rifle to a modern bolt gun and you will see why iron sights on useless on the bolt gun. Today's bolt rifles have minimal drop in the comb which prohibits getting face low enough to actually use iron sights. There are exceptions to this such as big game stopping rifles, but for the most part a rifle set up properly for iron sites provides poor check weld when setup with a scope. Even the infamous Remington 700 bdl which came with iron sights had a comb to high to actually comfortably use them. I have several of these and could never get my face low enough on the stock to use without getting my check bone smashed from the recoil. I am a tall and lean man so i can't imagine what it would be like for someone that is large with a big face. Just my own personal experience.
 
I bought a Savage Scout rifle because it came with iron sights. Now I hunt with it with a scope so that I know I am getting a better shot but I like the option. I think some of the reasons are that it cuts down on cost and if there are not iron sights then you have to buy something else (call it industry marketing).
 
Compare the drop of the comb on a lever action rifle to a modern bolt gun and you will see why iron sights on useless on the bolt gun. Today's bolt rifles have minimal drop in the comb which prohibits getting face low enough to actually use iron sights. There are exceptions to this such as big game stopping rifles, but for the most part a rifle set up properly for iron sites provides poor check weld when setup with a scope. Even the infamous Remington 700 bdl which came with iron sights had a comb to high to actually comfortably use them. I have several of these and could never get my face low enough on the stock to use without getting my check bone smashed from the recoil. I am a tall and lean man so i can't imagine what it would be like for someone that is large with a big face. Just my own personal experience.

This is likely true, but I still like IRON SIGHTS on my guns. I have a .30-'06 with scope, and it has sights and I have a bolt .22 with sights and no scope. I have a number of center fire levers with no scope, a Winchester 9422 without scope, and a Browning BL-22 which has a cheap scope on it right now .... dunno if I'll keep it that way. Rear sight leaf folds down on that which is kinda neat.
 
Companies like Remington and Savage use straight stocks on all their bolt action rifles because 95 percent of American hunters use scopes on bolt actions. They use the same straight stocks on the few models that come with iron sights as a cost savings. Too expensive to have a second style stock for low demand items. Also most Americans who buy a model with irons probably are still going to mount a scope and treat the irons as a backup. CZ used to sell rifles with irons and stocks with the proper drop. The rifles with the straight stock intended for scope mounting had American in the name.
 
Are you willing to add 200 bucks to the price of an entry level deer rifle? Then you might be one of the few who will step up to an iron sighted rifle. Good sights aren't cheap, and most are going to put a scope on it anyway. So why build two different stocks for the same model rifle, when a premium version can carry the sights, a nicer, or at least different stock, different finish, etc and appeal to the 1 to 2 percent that need or want those features.
I am an iron sight guy, but only 2 of my centerfire bolt guns have irons. And I paid extra for those specific guns to have irons on them. I think it's worth it, but most don't.
 
... I’ve looked around, and the only options out there go for premium prices... especially now. ...
I hear ya. A couple months ago I went shopping for a Henry Long Ranger. There were unsighted Long Rangers available at MSRP and below, locally and online, but to get a sighted Long Ranger I had to pay $150 premium in a Gunbroker auction to snag the only one for sale I could find anywhere. (My LGS tried to get one for me, but none were to be had by them, and Henry wasn't making any at the time.)

I can see selling sighted and unsighted models and I can probably even see selling the unsighted model for a little less. But all the evidence I've seen indicates then when both models are offered in the manufacturer's catalog, they're probably actually making more unsighted models than sighted.
 
As stated: market preference. And aside from the stock shape mentioned, irons often get in the way of scope mounting, or otherwise make the scope mounting less than optimal. In a world where the vast majority of shooters will use a magnified scope or RDS (yes, in europe, the stalk is often done with a red dot) the guns are optimized that way.

Most makers will still make a version with iron sights if you look hard enough. As just pointed out while I was typing, they are becoming rare (low demand!) so may command a premium or take some looking, or both.

But then... serious iron sight lovers still complain as they are cheap, or just not the type they like. 20+ years ago, plenty of those "why are factory irons so bad" discussions, instead.

Or, go to the secondary market and go full old school, with fine blueing and all that. Some lovely old guns optimized for very nice irons out there.
 
I bought a Savage Scout rifle because it came with iron sights. Now I hunt with it with a scope so that I know I am getting a better shot but I like the option. I think some of the reasons are that it cuts down on cost and if there are not iron sights then you have to buy something else (call it industry marketing).

Same here, I bought a Savage Scout with the adjustable comb so that I could revert to iron sights or use a scout scope. Most modern bolt guns are not able to use iron sights because the comb is too high, without adding an adjustable comb. My new CVA break-action, it has no iron sights. Like, I thought that ridiculous but frankly, the comb is much to high to get down in irons as it too was intended for mounting a scope and even came with a rail.

And modern scopes are reliable, offer a wide field of view and a much brighter view than without a scope, why not use a scope? And, us older people, iron sights are fairly useless for anything much beyond 50 yards. And while on the subject, if Marlin and Henry did not intend to scope their rifles, they would not drill and tap for scope mounting, lever guns and scopes go together like peanuts and butter ;) . Could iron sights be obsolete?
 
Last edited:
Two issues, generally speaking.

1) The market is over-populated with crutch-dependent and/or technologically-needy consumers. Most consumers would not only not value them but would also chafe at the effect when reason #2 is factored in.

2) Proportionally - relative to the overall build cost - it is wildly expensive to incorporate quality, adjustable iron sights to a rifle. This cost, whether sights are supplied with every rifle in the line or not, gets applied in part to every rifle without sights as well.

Todd.
 
Regardless of your age, or the range you're taking shots optics simply do everything better. And actually cost less. A quality set of iron sights will cost more than a decent scope. Not many hunters willing to fork out another $200 for a rifle with decent iron sights. Some guys who compete in events that require irons usually add their own sights anyway. Plus modern optics are proving to be pretty reliable. Over the last 40+ years I've been shooting and hunting I've had more iron sights fail than scopes. The military isn't even using iron sights anymore on rifles.

Optics aren't just for long range use. A low powered scope with 1X to 3X on the low end will be faster to get on target than iron sights for those quick close range shots. Optics make it possible to take shots in low light that would be impossible with irons regardless of range. I've killed deer at ranges measured in a few feet with optics when it was still so dark I couldn't even see the iron sights.
 
I own exactly 1 rifle that doesn't have iron sights and that one I won on a raffle ticket. I have bought 2 new rifles recently a Browning BLR and a CZ 550 FS that both had iron sights. If people didn't buy rifles with no sights then they would all have iron sights. It is a customer market driven economy. If you want sights there are still rifles available that have them. Most hunters use scopes, he'll I have scopes on 75% of my rifles. But I do hunt certain places where a scope is more hindrance than help, so I have several rifles that only carry open sights. I would not take a rifle on a destination hunt that did not have iron back up sights. Just my personal preferences. We all have to decide where to spend our hard earned money. I am necessarily forced to buy used rifles to meet some of my requirements. My money, my choice.
 
I have bought 2 new rifles recently a Browning BLR and a CZ 550 FS that both had iron sights.
I don't keep a scope on either of my 550 FS guns these days. They are actually very accurate with the iron sights, and I'm fortunate enough to be able to see them pretty clearly when wearing 1.50 reading glasses, which also give me pretty good distance vision. One of these days I'll be forced to leave a scope on them, though...

n95iOrm.jpg
 
Having the target and sight (crosshairs) on the same focal plane is a huge advantage and if I'm hunting I want every advantage that I can get. I have taken irons out hunting from time to time for nostalgia reasons and I'd say it cuts my effectiveness by at least 50%. And I play the CMP Games type of marksmanship all summer long so am no stranger to shooting iron sights accurately. Shooting at a stationary target is one thing, trying to line up a shot at a deer walking through the woods at first light is another.
 
How soon we forget. Hunting rifles lack iron sights because shooters demanded that, with the maturation of optic technology, makers remove them. Partly for aesthetics, but also to facilitate scope installation and eliminate a snag point. Rifle owners had to buy plug screws of the right length to fill in the four holes in the barrel where the front & rear sights were mounted. Sometimes, those plug screws fell out. The threads trapped moisture and promoted corrosion. No one wanted iron sights on bolt actions used for hunting the lower 48.

I'm laughing at the idea iron sights are only available at a premium. The last rifles makers deleted iron sights from were the economy models. They only had iron sights so a nimrod on a budget could hunt this season and buy a scope for the next.

Iron sights were cheap and fragile. Even when iron sights ruled the world, factory sights were nothing but placeholders. Serious shooters replaced them with aperture or Express sights.

The majority of stocks in the fifties had drop at the toe to facilitate the use of iron sights and a sloped comb. It enhanced muzzle rise and pushed the comb into the shooter's face during recoil.

In the sixties, a Monte Carlo was added to raise the comb height to match the line of sight of rifle scopes. The comb was sloped forward or kept parallel to the bore to reduce cheek slap. When Ruger introduced the M-77, they simply raised the comb (and the toe) for scope use. No Monte Carlo. It set the pattern for what became known as the "Modern Classic". Other makers were slow to offer modern classic stocks, but when the mountain rifle craze took off, custom rifle makers had fully embraced the modern classic stock, Remington, Winchester and other bolt action makers had no choice but to meet the demand. Moving away from the Monte Carlo improved recoil control and offered a cleaner aesthetic.

Although the M77 was offered with iron sights, the comb of the modern classic stock was too high to use them comfortably. I shot one magazine through an old M-77 with iron sights and swore I'd never do it again. If I want a bolt action to shoot with iron sights, it's gonna be an 03-A3.
 
How soon we forget. Hunting rifles lack iron sights because shooters demanded that, with the maturation of optic technology, makers remove them.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top