danez71
Member
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.