Why so few hunting rifles with sights?

[danez71]

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.

Point was that there was a lot of ppl claiming Ruger didn't make it because there was not enough demand. "It's just that simple", similarly they said.

There were ppl here at THR claiming that all the way until Ruger introduced it... then they said the market won't buy many because as compared to AR the price was high... they said ban states are really the only main market for them.

But they are popular nationwide and used in competitions all overy the country. Ppl buy them for fun and self defense and a variety of reasons all over the country.

They quickly became successful enough that they even expanded the line with more models and another caliber.

All the ppl here saying that it was simply a matter of lack of demand were wrong.

Now let's do the thumb safety.

The general market wasn't demanding no thumb safety at the time. Marketing ppl marketed the tactical... simplicity... you'll forget scenarios.

While some mfgrs introduced new models with no thumb saftey available, S&W introduced a new line that offered both with and with out thumb safety.

The cost to offer both is negligible and they don't hand their competitors free customers.

This let's the consumer decide.

And S&W did this even though the thumb saftey is often said to be a shrinking market because it's a relic of days gone by displaced by the marketed safety and tactical superiority of the trigger dindle.

And that may be true (I'm not here to decide for others), but none the less S&W not only introduced a new line with & with out the thumb safety, but when they revamped the line, they apparently saw the benefits of doing so and not only kept it, but they also spent $/resources to improve it.

We can do this we sling stud mounts. Shrinking market.... some mfgrs/models stopped... others didnt..

But some others have stocks that have the spots for you to add them but don't provide the stud mounts. They cater to both markets at nominal cost.

I don't use slings. But to not at least have the spot for them I think is a bad move for general average rifles like a Ruger American for example.


If the reason was really as simple as shrinking market and cost savings, Ruger & other mfgrs could easily stop offering irons on all rifles, or even just all bolt rifles, or just all CF bolt rifles, and realize some level of cost savings before quarterly earnings even come out.

But they dont.

I don't know exactly why they dont and neither does anyone else here.

Id just like to have the holes there and the option.

 

[CapnMac]

So much of this falls to "fashion."
The glam manufacturers put out the "new hotness" and it was bought up and accepted as 'normal.'
Then, a different "new hotness" comes along.
In my lifetime rifle glass has been through some remarkable changes.
Scopes went from really expensive to affordable. Fixed power gave way to adjustable. From an expensive option to an absolute necessity.
Iron sights have never fully vanished.
The fashion trends may have gone against them, but what the market requires, the market provides.

 

[Bill Raby]

Being accurate with iron sights requires more practice than with a scope. The goal of hunting today is to put in as little effort or skill as possible. Most hunters today are not capable of getting within 100 yards of an animal. Many people are so terribly bad at hunting that they will actually brag about shooting animals at 500+ yards. The average hunter these days is not capable of hunting without a scope.

 

[Varminterror]

The average hunter these days is not capable of hunting without a scope.

They couldn’t 30yrs ago either. It’s just more popular to whine online about new shooters today than was possible back then.

Frankly, in training and training WITH new shooters frequently throughout the last couple decades, I would challenge that the internet has put information into the hands of new shooters to more quickly attain skills far faster than was possible during any other generation. Sure, folks don’t shoot iron sights any more, so they’re not adept at shooting iron sights. Not many folks from Texas are skilled ice skaters either...

 

[9x56MS]

Can't disagree with anything you just stated. My Saturdays used to be spent with my brother taking turns on the 22 rifle shooting rats at the dump. You got real good with iron sights as rats were great moving target practice. It takes something in short supply nowadays to get to be a good hunter, time. No one dedicates the time to hunting that it takes to get good at it. Just learning to move through the woods unnoticed takes years of practice. The good news is it can be taught. My son is a good example but it does take time and dedication. He may never be as good at still hunting as me but he is better than me at selecting stand sites and setting an ambush. Being in the service he gets plenty of trigger time with both open sights and scopes.

 

[someguy2800]

I've never known anyone to say they want to buy a rifle with no sights or way to aim it when they leave the store.

I dont like, but can understand, them not including irons.... but to not drill & tap for a set of irons is a diservice, imo, all rifles should be able to use either irons or optics.

Do not want at all. Won’t buy it if it has them except for lever actions or peep sights. Even on a lever action cutting the rear sight leaf into a filler plate and putting peep sights on it. I hunt a mile from the house, if my scope fails in the middle of the hunt I’m just going home to get a different rifle. If I ever go on grizzly bear hunt or some remote type of thing then I could see having both but I would style bring two rifles anyway.

 

[Risky buisness]

In seeing many responses to this topic saying in essence ' I wont buy a rifle with irons' , to old holdouts from another age or some similar verbiage gives me pause. Y'all do you.... dont like the idea, dont use, or buy them. Dont criticize or liken iron sight shooters to some Neanderthals either. It's up to that indivigual wether they desire a usefull option or not.
I happen to shoot more iron/ aperture sights than anything else. And with the several optic encumbered specimens I have, they are equipped with QD mounts to take the glass off if needed.
I see folks posting around ' I cant see the sights '
and other similar talk, their are several methods to allow that to be a non issue, the first and cheapest when firing at a paper target is simply shoot at the same part of the blur.
They go up in price from there to include diopter changing lenses in an aperture sight, dang that diopter changing lens is the same thing as that end bell on the scopes of many of the iron sight detractors rifles that oddly enough had to be adjusted for that shooter to ' see the sights ' too.

 

[.38 Special]

In seeing many responses to this topic saying in essence ' I wont buy a rifle with irons' , to old holdouts from another age or some similar verbiage gives me pause. Y'all do you.... dont like the idea, dont use, or buy them. Dont criticize or liken iron sight shooters to some Neanderthals either. It's up to that indivigual wether they desire a usefull option or not.
I happen to shoot more iron/ aperture sights than anything else. And with the several optic encumbered specimens I have, they are equipped with QD mounts to take the glass off if needed.
I see folks posting around ' I cant see the sights '
and other similar talk, their are several methods to allow that to be a non issue, the first and cheapest when firing at a paper target is simply shoot at the same part of the blur.
They go up in price from there to include diopter changing lenses in an aperture sight, dang that diopter changing lens is the same thing as that end bell on the scopes of many of the iron sight detractors rifles that oddly enough had to be adjusted for that shooter to ' see the sights ' too.

I believe you have hit the nail on the head. A fellow with even just a bit of experience can get his scope-sighted rifle to hit where he wants, and then be successful in the field. More power to him, and he is to be congratulated.

There are folks more afflicted, though. They probably have gone through the phases, and may have decided that the 6.5 with the million X scope is no longer quite what they had in mind. For those folks, Williams and NECG and vintage Lyman on Ebay might be just the thing, and I guess I count myself among them. The question, of course, is whether this handful of lunatics is worth the time and effort of the big rifle manufacturers. The answer, I think, is apparent.

 

[chicharrones]

For those that have a sightless Ruger American Ranch in 5.56, I stumbled across a nice looking set of sights from Nodak Spud.

(Of course, someone in the thread may have already mentioned it and I didn't dig to see it. Ooops in advance.)

 

[danez71]

For those that have a sightless Ruger American Ranch in 5.56, I stumbled across a nice looking set of sights from Nodak Spud.

(Of course, someone in the thread may have already mentioned it and I didn't dig to see it. Ooops in advance.)

Thanks for the link. Good find.

I've been consider the American Ranch in either 223/556 or maayybe the 350 legend (being sucked into the straight wall cartridge idea)

Now I know I have an option for the .223.

(The link didn't work earlier this morning but does now for those interested.)

 

[mgmorden]

I personally like iron sights on hunting rifles too, though I never use them (when hunting I like to use a scope - I don't care if I'm taking a shot at 20 yards I'd rather take it with a 1x magnification scope than with irons).

The thing is:
1. Iron sights can get in the way of a scope. Sometimes at low magnification you can pickup the front sight in the sight picture, and sometimes the rear sight just gets in the way of mounting.
2. Iron sights cost money. Sure not a lot of money, but they are most certainly worked into the price. If they omit them, they can sell the rifle a bit cheaper, and while a lot of people may say "sure I'd pay a few dollars extra for irons", market data doesn't tell the same story. They stopped offering them because back when you could buy either version and the iron sights cost more, people didn't buy the iron sight version.

#2 is even more of an issue when you look at the extreme cost cutting being done to get rifles as cheap as possible. They are changing magazines and bolt shrouds into plastic to save money - they're certainly not going to throw in some steel iron sights that won't be used.

Funnily enough though, I can't stand optics on pistols and shoot those exclusively with iron sights, and I don't mind shooting aperture irons on semi-autos, but I want a scope in the deer stand.

 

[czhen]

Rifles as others objects have different uses, lately fashion mandate to have scope to be sniper precision at 25 yards indoor range. People was driven to use scope for marketing, which is fine with me, but firearm manufacturers don't include sights just to save few dimes and charge an eye for rings.
The usage of glass are mandatory when our eyes need help. However, in my case if the rifle of interest does no have iron sight I do pass down to the next, even if it has an optic.
My favorites old Winchesters M70 and CZ 550 FS, Mauser rifles iron sights, yeap I'm a stubborn, eccentric old fart (per my peers).

 

[9x56MS]

That was the main reason I bought the CZ 550 FS in 9.3x62. Any rifle I am traveling to another continent to hunt with MUST have a back up sighting system. Besides I enjoy hunting with irons old eyes and all.

 

[Frostbite]

I have always preferred iron open sights (lighter, more maneuverability, not in my hand's way when my rifle sits there and I am walking, and, for myself, a whole lot faster to shoot at a running prey, plus no weather can render them unusable), but I now understand the need for an optic... I am now limited to maybe 100-125 yards for a deer by irons, if the light is good and I am in a good day, less when it gets darker. Also, some stocks make iron sights practically unusable. My new CZ 557 Black Edition shows that. I invested in Warne quick detachable rings anyway. But CZ also makes rifles with iron sights appropriately stocked (gorgeous ones). I don't feel like there is only a few rifles with factory iron sights left available, but will say that there are less now than in the past, and that is a good thing, most modern bolt action rifles being stocked appropriately for scope use. I sure like to have the choice!

 

[lagerratrobe]

I find it surprising every time I see a rifle that has no front sight and only a Picatinny rail in the rear - with zero option to purchase it in any other way. An example would be the CVA Scout. Nice rifle, but only available for use with a scope. Their Optima V2 muzzleloader can be purchased either way, and by eye at least, looks almost identical in design to the Scout.

I understand the people who prefer to buy a rifle with the intent of only using a scope on it and who don't want to have any hardware in the way. That said, I personally would like to have the option of choosing what sights I have on my gun. I don't need or want optics on a brush gun with a 20" barrel that I'm mostly using on an ad hoc basis for plinking or nuisance removal. Yes, I know (from playing Call of Duty) that there are all sorts of short range tactical options like reflex and red dot sights that will work on a rail, but they make me laugh every time I see them on an otherwise classy rifle.

I happen to still enjoy the challenge and simplicity of shooting with open sights. If I need to pay a few more dollars to have the drilled and tapped holes, fine, but give me that option at least.

 

[Bartojc]

I only have a couple rifles with irons, and they lever action or .22. They only reason they have irons is because I either do not shoot them much or I haven't gotten around to putting a scope on them

IMHO there is no reason to buy a bolt action with irons. In over 35 years of hunting across a number of states/terrain and dozens of different people I have seen 2 issues with a scope. One back in the early 90's one guys scope fogged in a rain/sleet storm in WY. It cleared later in the day. A couple years ago a buddy fell on the ice getting into the blind and fell on the rifle bending the bell of the scope into the barrel. That's it. I've hunted in rain storms many times and never had a scope fog. I think that optics are very reliable these days. Maybe back in the 60's and 70's they were more unreliable, but those optics (and hunters) are leaving the ranks.

-Jeff

-Jeff

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

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.

$200. for irons is inflated. Done at the factory with regular run of the mill sights should not cost the consumer over $50 and probably much less. My eyes aren't good enough to use irons and scopes are much better than they were in the old days so it makes sense that they are left off.

 

[danez71]

IMHO there is no reason to buy a bolt action with irons. In over 35 years of hunting across a number of states/terrain and dozens of different people I have seen 2 issues with a scope.

And the flip said is this posted in the Rifle section.

If a shooter cannot shoot without a scope, then he is either not much of a shooter to begin with, or he is lazy and is looking for instant gratification.

For the record, I like using scopes even when my eyes were young and good; even more so now.

But I do like having irons as well and shoot a couple 3 rifles that way.


I'd be happy enough if they just drilled and tapped for irons and offered irons.

It wasn't that long ago that the mfgrs trend was to have irons and drill and tap for a rail and also include the rail. Ruger still does that with the 10/22.

 

[entropy]

Being accurate with iron sights requires more practice than with a scope. The goal of hunting today is to put in as little effort or skill as possible. Most hunters today are not capable of getting within 100 yards of an animal. Many people are so terribly bad at hunting that they will actually brag about shooting animals at 500+ yards. The average hunter these days is not capable of hunting without a scope.

That might be true out West, where stalking is required. In many areas that are hunted in this country, there could be many deer within 100 yards of you, but the woods are so thick, you'll never see to 100 yards. This usually is solved by drives, in which the hunters often use shotguns with buck (where legal) or slugs. Rifles will often be open-sighted lever actions, and those rifles that have scopes will either be low magnification fixed, or more likely variables turned down to the minimum. (1.5-5 at 1.5, 2-7 at 2, etc.) Scopes often are a hindrance in these conditions, both in the sense that even at the lowest power, a deer my get up right in front of you to the point where even at 2x, all you'll see when you bring that gun up is brown, and that they are another thing to catch on brush. I've had experiences with both these problems in brush. Then there's the classic kicking up a deer in thick brush with the scope on 9x, BTDT, too.
A scope is a tool. Chosen wisely, and used properly, it greatly increases a hunter's chance of filling a tag. It can also create bad hunters in those who rely on their technology to do the work for them, as your last sentence intimates. The newest syllogism in that vein is that with "long range rifles" (not pointing fingers at any particular caliber, now) <6.5 Creedmoor, cough, cough> and higher powered/ advanced featured scopes available these days, some of those hunters now think they are capable of 500+ yard shots (true some are, but even they shouldn't be doing so unless there is no way to stalk closer) to the point their fieldcraft, if it ever existed, atrophies.

I invested in Warne quick detachable rings anyway.

This, along with 2 scopes; one low powered, one higher powered, with or with out irons, is the panacea then.

 

[mgmorden]

It's simple market forces.

Imagine you're a gun maker. You and your competition are selling rifles at about the same price with iron sights on them. He starts offering a version without iron sights. That allows him to sell the guns for $40 cheaper. People - many of whom will eventually lament the demise of iron sights - when it comes down to it elect to save that money and start buying his rifles with the sights omitted instead of yours. You decide that in order to compete you need to start offering rifles without sights too. You start that and are now selling rifles again.

After a few years you notice that you're selling 12 rifles without sights for every 1 that does have them. Stock is starting to accumulate on the sighted models and distributors hardly ever order them. Eventually it makes sense to not even bother producing the model with sights anymore because that's not what is selling.

That's the thing that you notice with a lot of people who will complain about walnut giving way to polymer, bluing giving way to sprayed on finishes, and iron sights going away. They'll say how much it sucks that all that stuff is gone - but most don't really want it back. They want all the polish of the old guns but at the PRICE of the new ones. It just doesn't work that way. If Savage were to add some iron sights to the Axis . . . and a nice walnut stock, and a blued finish . . . pretty soon you're back up to the rifle costing $800-900 instead of the $250-300 bargain that makes them appealing in the first place.

Consider a benefit though: pretty much every single rifle these days comes already drilled and tapped. It used to be that you'd need to figure in that cost as an extra fee to the gunsmith to get a rifle setup for a scope.

 

[danez71]

Mostly agree but 2 things...

If Savage were to add some iron sights to the Axis . . . and a nice walnut stock, and a blued finish . . . pretty soon you're back up to the rifle costing $800-900 instead of the $250-300 bargain that makes them appealing in the first place.

It doesn't cost (with mark up) $500-$600 for Walnut and sights.

Consider a benefit though: pretty much every single rifle these days comes already drilled and tapped. It used to be that you'd need to figure in that cost as an extra fee to the gunsmith to get a rifle setup for a scope.

Pendulum...

1st Just irons

2nd Irons and drilled and tapped for scope; maybe include scope rail, maybe even lower to mid scope for this that want more than irons.

3rd Mostly only drilled and tapped or integrated rail for scope; maybe specials include lower to mid scope for those that want a way to shoot their rifle with out significantly more cost.

Obviously more incremental steps but that's the basic evolution.

IMO, not hard to find equilibrium in that. Just provide a way to have either or both. Drilling and tapping a few holes is fairly insignificant cost.

Could offset by not threading barrels as most people don't have muzzle devices...

 

[Gooseman69]

Rifles with iron (open) sights,just don't sell as well as rifles without them its truely that simple