Looking for folks who often switch between iron and scope si

[Canuck Bob]

I'm doing some serious research on iron sights, barrel, receiver and tang versions. I am wondering if folks could share their experience when they switch between scopes and irons on the same rifle. I scoped my 444 for awhile but returned to my Williams FP fairly quickly. I did use the scope to develop loads occasionally.

What I earned was that back then my groups were about twice as large at 100 yards with my peep. My 444 really likes the Hornady 265FNs bullets loaded hot. I could get close to 1" 3 shot groups with my Ultralight 2.5X scope. With peep sights it came in about 2". Soon I'll revisit this with older eyes but the same rifle.

If its not too much to ask please include some details if this interests you, bench, offhand, tuned handloads, factory ammo, and iron sight type, general suff like this. Thanks.

[Borregos]

Hey Bob, will see what I can dig out for you
May take a few days.

[Lastmohecken]

When I was young, I did some switching back and forth on the same guns. I found that on targets of good defination in good light, there wasn't much difference in groups, but under hunting conditions, good light and good target defination could not be depended on, even with young eyes, so I for my serious take on prisoners rifles, I chose a good scope.

Now days, I don't do much switching, but I do have dedicated scoped rifles, and dedicated iron sight rifles, and pick the one I feel most closely goes with my goals of the day. If I absolutely don't want to loose any oportunity that presents itself, then I will probably choose my Browning BLR in .308 with a scope, that way I am pretty most effective, no matter wheather it a running shot, or a long shot, or even a close shot. But if I am content with just enjoying the day, and willing to turn down a marginal chance, due to distance or poor light, then I may choose a more traditional iron sighted leveraction.

I am a hunter, mostly. But I used to shoot competitions of both speed up close and long distance accuracy. And I will say that a good low to medium power variable or fixed power scope, or even a high power scope if the siduation dictates, is always the best sight for precision shooting. But close and fast shooting is often best done with open sights, or a peep. Sometimes I just don't want to carry a scoped rifle, and choose a 6 to 8lb iron sighted rifle instead, but I do not kid myself, anymore that I am as well armed as I would be with a scoped rifle, if it comes down to taking a shot in poor light or at much distance.

[ollogger]

Took a scope off a pre 64 mod. 70 a while back, it shot bout a inch at a 100yd. with 2 loads
& 2 different bullets, then put on a lyman rec. sight & shot alot with it. groups went to bout 3 in.
with it, thats bout my average with a rec. or tang sight, worse with bbl. sight
just the oppisite when i took the rec. sight off my 88 win. & put a scope on it
its a 308 & the scope is gonna stay on it, it shoots good & i want one levergun with a scope
I shoot off the hood of my pickup while sighting in with pillows for rests

ollogger

[retmech]

Last year I did a test with my Browning T-Bolt .22 at 50 and 100 yds. with peep sight and 4 power scope shooting a number of groups at both distances. At 50 yds difference between scope and peep between .1-.2", advantage scope. At 100 yds next to no difference laterally but vertical was generally 1" larger with peeps. The gun had a basic post for front sight and the placement on the bull vertically is hard to do exactly. At least that's where I think the problem lies. Target front sights have different circular inserts that I think would solve that problem and be almost as good as a low powered scope.

[Old Ironsights]

The only rifle I swap from Scope to Irons and back with any regularity is my G3.

Given that it is a Battle Rifle (Constitutional Defense Rifle) I do NOT even try for small groups. What I shoot at is a 12" Gong at various ranges.

My Range is only 300yds to the farthest gong, so that's what I work with.

At 300yds, as long as I hit 90+% with irons at 300 and 99+% with my 4x at 300, using cheap milsurp..., I figure I'm accurate enough for that rifle...

And I am...

[BenT]

I've used the Lyman 66 on most of my levers, but they are the older steel ones. But I have gone to 2X7 scopes. I leave them on 2 power and shoot with both eyes open. In the dark woods , I was having problems in early morning light seeing the front bead. In the thick stuff I still carry iron sighted guns with the Lyman peep. I do like the Marbles game getter scope mount. It has a peep sight built in. I don't think they made them for Marlins though.

[86er]

I have XS sights on my 1886, that is the ghost ring rear sight and white post front. It is a good set-up out to 100 yds. On the bench, I can keep my most accurate load right at its max potential and that is 1.5" -3 shot groups. Beyond 100 yds on animals the front sight takes up a lot of space and makes precision much harder. With the same rifle using a 2.5X scout scope I can keep accurate shots where they need to go on small animals like TX whitetail deer and impala. The scope extends my range about 50 yards keeping MOA consistent with the loads capabilities, in other words 1.5 @ 100yds, 2" at 150 yds where I cannot keep this accuracy with the sights. Beyond 150 yds I have used a 2X7 scope set on 7X. This scope stretches the range I can shoot to 200 yds keeping the group size consistent with the range. So at 200 yds I can keep around 3 - 3.5" groups shooting off sticks or another solid position like prone. I cannot do this with the XS sights, mostly due to the wide front sight taking up a lot of space and blocking out everything under the aiming point.

On another rifle, a 375 HH I used a XS weaver back-up peep with an ivory bead up front for close range. The set-up made for quick close range sighting and adequate 100 yds sighting on most animals the size I would use this caliber on. With a good solid rest I could hit a kudu/elk sized animal in the vitals out to about 200 yds consistently but the bead covered a lot of vitals so real precision work was limited. On the same rifle I use a 2.5X8X scope. At 2.5X it is not much more accurate than with the sights with me behind the rifle out to 100 yds and change. Beyond that the crosshair starts to help with precision. I've never shot game with it on that low power, but instead turn up to 8X for game that is at any distance and is not dangerous. With 8X I can hit a deer or antelope out to 300 yds no problem with some rest or tight sling and a controlled shot, also knowing the trajectory very well. I ended up setting the sights for 50 yds with 380 grain bullets and the scope for 3" high at 100 yds with 260 grain bullets.

With a Henry .22 rifle I have the same group size at 25 yds with the sights as I do with a 4X rimfire scope. The gun is solid and the bullseyes are 1" round, so the gun is shooting to its potential with either set up. At 50 yds I can keep a smaller group with the 4X scope, about 1/2 the size as with open sights. What I find is that with the scope on this gun I do not get the groups where I throw one out of a string of shots, say 3 out of 10. Those 3 outliers are from poor focus and maybe less than stellar trigger work. However, the 4X allows me to see the target in one plane and notice the movement of the gun, so I control the rifle better to keep a group with no shots thrown.

I hope this type of info is what you were looking for and you find it helpful. I look forward to everyone elses responses and your results as well.

[Rifleman]

I switch sights on my Win94 a lot. Now I have the $50 BSA Deerhunter on it using the see-thru scope rings/mounts so I cam also use the stock sights.
If I don't have that scope on it, I'll use the Williams FP peep sight.

I'll reiterate what Retmech said, achieving the proper parallax is the only problem with the Williams peep, I am more accurate with the stock iron sights than I am with the Williams FP. With the stock sights there is no question as to sight alignment; it is just that the Williams can be adjusted for greater distances.

Shooting it with the scope reduces the group size by about half.

I have other peeps on my 30-06s. I have an unaltered US Model of 1917, and an old Lyman receiver peep on a sporterized Springfield. My best group ever, was shot with the 1917, it regularly shoots sub-moa.

I have a scoped 30-06 that out-shoots them all on a regular basis.

[Rifleman]

I wanted to add something...

I like the scopes more because I can shoot from 1/2 hour before sunrise, until 1/2 hour after sunset in most any direction. With iron sights there are a myriad of factors which can impair their use.

[AJMD429]

Depends on WHY I'm using a scope vs. the irons...

* if it is to extend shooting hours with a 'light-gathering' scope, the magnification will be low enough that even in good light, my groups won't be much smaller than with the irons, but then that isn't the goal with this kind of scope/shooting.

* if it is to see a small/far-away target better, the magnification will be high enough that there's no WAY I could shoot as good with the irons. Today I was teaching some new shooters, and one of the things we shot was a .223 Encore with a 40x scope on it, off a bipod. The newbies were hitting pop-bottle-caps at 100 yards successfully - none of us could even SEE a bottle-cap sized target at that range using iron sights.

Hope that helps add perspective.

I wish someone would make a good see-through scope mount that had a built-in 'peep' sight of really good quality and adjustment. Then you could leave the scope in place for most kinds of shooting.

[MrMurphy]

XS makes a Picatinny rail for leverguns with a built in rear iron sight.

LaRue rings means you can remove the scope and reattach it to the same T-mark without losing zero......many, many times.


As Cooper once said, scopes don't help you shoot better, they help you see better.

[El Chivo]

I have my Marlins set up with both tang sight and scope. The tang sight looks right over the Weaver rail and actually improves the sight picture.

But, comparing is hard because the idea is to shoot different loads. The tang is for silhouette/low velocity and the scope is for hunting/high velocity. Each is sighted in for the load in question. In general, my groups are about the same for iron sights or scope, although I'm improving on the scope.

[FWiedner]

I find that once I scope a rifle, it usually stays scoped.

If I change from one sight to another, it's usually from a Scout Scope to a red or green-dot type sight on a gun that also has permanent iron (usually XS) sights. I change my sights according to how I use the gun or what the light conditions will be where I'm using it.

[Nicknack]

I normally use tang sights on my 44 Magnum and receiver sights on my 45-70 Marlin of a day for fast shooting mobs of pigs/goats,and for twilight/night I normally switch to a scoped Bruno .243 &.22 but will sometimes put a red dot scope on the 44 for shooting as the evening comes on for cats,foxes,rabbits and anything found at night that is feral.(spotlight shooting is legal in Australia)
Used to use a Winchester M14 for culling Brumbies (feral horses) with issue open sights of a day and put a scope on for night shooting until our semi autos were confiscated in 1996.
I prefer the open sights as I can track a moving target better than try to see through a scope.
Regards
edited to add that I went out once spotlighting with the M14 and forgot the scope,so I painted the front sights with white liquid paper,and made sure the front sight was in the light to slightly illuminate the front sight through the peep hole.was a little hard but the M14 was very accurate and never missed.
Wish I still had that rifle,i think it was the best rifle ever made.

[BigSky56]

When I do ADC shooting at night I use a red dot scope, when hunting in dark timber I use peep sights but on my 99 I have glass for distance shooting on predators or game. danny

[COSteve]

It's obvious that the particular rifle doesn't get more accurate when a scope is mounted but rather you, the shooter can expect a better sight picture which may help you with a more accurate aim. This means that the answers you've gotten here depend upon how much improvement in sight picture the scope, irons, peep, tang, etc. gives you. The range one shoots at can significantly influence the results because the longer ranges require an enhanced sight picture to accurately see a small, precision target even for an expert marksman.

Further, an expensive scope added to a precision rifle with poor iron sights, shot by a precision marks man may yield a huge increase in accuracy while a cheap scope on the same rifle may only yield marginally better results. Also, an expensive scope set on a rifle with limited accuracy, shot by a precision 'irons' marksman may yield no increase at all.

[Canuck Bob]

Thanks everyone,

I am casting about for a series like some of our members write to answer questions and educate on iron sights of all types. Basically adding a new dimension to my hobby now that hunting is fading away.

When I used my 2.5X on the 444 there was no doubt about the effectiveness of scopes. In my case I was willing to trade that effectiveness for the superb hand carry of my Marlin. Rifles just feel too clumsy to me with a scope. It did cost me some late day but really not that much. The last moose I shot with the scoped 444 was miles up a cutline at the last minutes of legal light. After that I decided to heed the advice my uncle was fond of giving visiting hunters. "Up here we don't shoot a moose unless he has two hooves in the pickup box". It caused some range reduction but not that one would notice with a 444.

What I was hoping to figure out was how much do folks lose in group size at 100 yards. It varies but a good estimate would be a doubling or a touch more of group size with irons. A 1 moa rifle would deliver 2"-2 1/2" groups at 100 yards for the same shooter used to irons. When a guy reports his stock Winchester is shooting 4" groups at a 100 yards his rifle might be a 2 moa shooter. It might explain why folks think leveractions are inherently inaccurate when experienced levergunners are not so sure of that. My Rem 700 never grouped as well as my 444 but there aren't many places I would say that, folks just accuse me of lying.

[Old Savage]

My guessis group size won't matter on a moose.

[AJMD429]

When a guy reports his stock Winchester is shooting 4" groups at a 100 yards his rifle might be a 2 moa shooter. It might explain why folks think leveractions are inherently inaccurate when experienced levergunners are not so sure of that. My Rem 700 never grouped as well as my 444 but there aren't many places I would say that, folks just accuse me of lying.

That's why almost every new rifle I get will be set up with a scope-base, and my old 32x BSA scope mounted on the gun, for a test-run off the Lead-Sled using a variety of good ammo. I want to know what the gun's potential is - not with 'traditional' sights or even 'practical' sights, but what that specific gun can do in an ideal situation. If I had a 16" levergun that shot 0.5" groups at 100 yards, that gun would likely wear a scope, and maybe a 'varmint' scope, even if I had to take it off a heavy-barreled bolt-action gun that peaked at 1.5" at 100 yards.

Deciding whether or not a gun should have a scope based on how 'pretty' or 'authentic' it looks may be fine for wall-hangers, but otherwise, find out for real, then act accordingly. Now not every 'inherently accurate' gun will really be at its most functional with a 10-40x varmint scope, nor will every 'bad shooter' necessarily fail to 'deserve' a scope, but I GIVE ALL MY GUNS A DAY AT THE BENCH WITH A 32x SCOPE, just to see their potential. . .


I didn't leave the 32x on this 16" Marlin carbine, but the second of the three-shot groups (middle three) let me know it had serious potential; it wound up being my first "Night Scout" project gun, and shoots almost as good a groups at night...


Likewise, I might have used lots of ammo shooting 'normally' and with 'normal' sights, before realizing the huge difference between these loads. This gun remained scoped, although with a more practical 3-9x; I know if I miss with that gun and load it isn't due to anything but my bad technique, or perhaps not seeing the target clearly enough because I should have stayed eccentric, and kept a high-magnification scope on it (...maybe a 5-20x . . . on a LEVERgun . . . !!! ).

[Old Savage]

With you there.

[El Chivo]

if you have an inaccurate rifle maybe you just haven't found the right load yet.

[Carlsen Highway]

I had a Husqvarna 1600 .30/06 that I switched between a 4x scope and a receiver peep sight.
With the scope it would do exactly one inch groups with just about any load I gave it. For comparison, with the receiver aperture sight I did regular 1 - 1.5 inch groups at 100 metres. Not enough difference to write home about.

I now have a Brno ZKK600 in .270 that will do one inch groups with a 1-5x scope with two loads. Using the rifles' factory open rear and the front bead sight at 100 metres I can do consistant 2 inch groups, again in a hunting rifle I do not consider this a significant difference.

One thing with open sights though, is that I try less harder at shooting, simply because I cannot see any of the micro wobbles that the cross hairs on a scope with do . This means I seem to have a smoother trigger pull.
In hunting situations I do not believe I shoot less well with the iron sights than a scope (at offhand shooting at deer) for this reason, possibly I may even be a better shot on game with iron sights, and certainly get the shot away quicker. Certainly ( and this despite everyone nowadays that will tell you different with all kinds of modern gunwriters backing them up) iron sights are much faster for target aquisition and getting a shot away quickly than even a low powered scope. That a scope is superior at this is knowledge known and accepted without question these days, but I know that its not true.

Now I know people will disagree with me, just have to accept that I have explored it all a great deal in deer hunting in the bush over here all year round, and for an unexpected target that jumps suddenly and which you only have a short period of time before it is away into the trees, iron sights will win every time in a race with a scope, even a v and a bead.
(Just to elaborate - a test comparison at the range between shooters with a scope and others with open sights is not a real test - because everyone already knows where the target is. An unexpected target from an unknown quarter that is moving - ie a real deer, is the only real test.)

Where a scope naturally shines is at shots over 200 metres away, where you might be shooting at half a deer with part of it covered by grasses or something, and then a properly placed shot from a rest with a scope is fine. On the other hand, to be honest, I had to partially invent that superiority, because I have made the same shots out to 200 metres with open v sights and done just fine.
In thick bush the scope will make an animal a bit easier to see through leaves and twigs because everything is on the same flat plane, but it will make you blind to the saplings in front of your barrel between you and the deer. Also, jumping spooked deer you are at a disadvantage with a scope, even a really low powered one, although less than if you had a 4x obviously.
However if you commonly come across animals when stalking in thick bush that are unaware of you completely, then a scope would probably be better.

It really depends on my mood.

But to address your question directly, in my experience, at 100 metres there is no significant difference in the hunting accuracy between a scope and iron sights when target shooting.
A receiver aperture sight or tang sight and a flat topped post or blade front sight will be slightly more accurate at that range than a bead front sight and open rear, but not majorly. (You would have to go out further than that for it to be significant)

Game shooting the situation changes subtly but I have come to realise in a real way, and I believe there is even less in the difference between all of them when shooting at a deer at 100 metres, especially offhand.


So how do I decide? It depends entirely on how the individual rifle handles with a scope on.

Most of my hunting is offhand shooting in the bush or scrubby clearings from ranges of six yards out to 150 yards. And the opinions above are written from that type of hunting experience. Open country at longer ranges I do not do a lot of, and I don't shoot from hides or tree stands, everything is still hunting, or stalking.
I think if I was mostly shooting from hides or treestands I would have a top quality scope and a bolt action wouldn't be nearly so fussy about rifle fit, balance and how they handle and shoot offhand.
This is one of the reasons why I like lever actions. They most often are better set up for offhand shooting with iron sights.
A Winchester 94 to my mind is the perfect offhand shooting rifle.

[Old Savage]

It is easier to shoot better with scopes especially in varying light conditions.

[El Chivo]

I did some testing with a low power scope vs. tang sight and the scope was much faster - 1 second on target, tang sight about 3 seconds. A lot more fussing with the tang sight.

It is hard to beat a low power scope for speed.

[Canuck Bob]

This is developing beyond my hopes. I want to make it clear this is not a scope bashing thread. There are a bushel basket full of very valid reasons to use a scope for all shooting and hunting. They are solid dependable devices that have earned the respect of riflemen everywhere. In today's competitive hunting fields taking advantage of every inch of range, every second of legal light, and setting a high priority on harvesting the scope is without question the proper choice.

I just don't think it needs to be an automatic thing for many of us. For a working gun I feel for many with reasonable eyesight an iron sighted deer rifle would be capable of 200 paces. Of course shooting gophers with my peep sighted 10/22 it would be 35 paces usually and 50 paces with perfect light to see the squeakers. The challenge is the same but the range is shorter than a varmint rifle.

I plan to challenge some of the myths about iron sights in the future. I use mine because the rifle handles and carries so well. I grew up with receiver sights and am very capable and comfortable with them. I use small drilled apertures or the open ring with both eyes open. I always hunted in rain and snow. I did have a scope failure on my 2.5X Leupold and 444, they fixed it with a smile and earned my business for life, but I was glad for my little tool kit and to drop in the William's slide. I'm a very selective shooter. If it isn't a sure thing I don't shoot.

I have used this thread so far to come up with ideas to test. I've been tied down due to ongoing cancer treatment but I celebrate 1 year post Bone Marrow Transplant in a couple weeks, yes I'm bragging and blessed. I want to shoot alot and needed to wait to cast the bullets until my date is up.

[AJMD429]

The fastest sight I've EVER used is the Marble's Bullseye (iron) sight. Nothing even comes close in my opinion.

The next-fastest is a holosight or red-dot one, depending on the size of the dot, whether it has any other reticle elements, and how thin the hardware is surrounding the 'sight window'.

Regular peeps and scopes for me aren't too different in speed, depending on the scope magnification, field of view, reticle, etc...

LOTS of this depends on how well the sights line-up when you shoulder the gun quickly.

[Old Savage]

Fastest - Leupold 4x in med Leupold rings on a model 88.

[Canuck Bob]

Years ago I found little difference in speed between my peep and the lo-power scope with low rings on a 444S. The rifle has been my favourite for decades and fits like a glove. With just a little practice the scope sight picture was automatic. I still remember my shock when I developed loads with the scope.

I installed a peep on an early used Rem 700 7Mag in the 70s. It was clumsy for irons with its tall monte carlo comb. It shot well but the stock slapped me silly with the hard cheek weld for low iron sights. I didn't like the 7Mag and settled on my 444 for many years.

[Old Savage]

Sounds like you are answering your own question.

[Canuck Bob]

Carlsen Highway, I share a similar style of hunting and agree with your assessment of iron sights. I believe the difference is marginal at the ranges appropriate for irons.

The problem for me is I must remember to stick with discussing irons because I haven't scoped anything in 30 years and I was never any good with them. Therefore I sought educated experiences. I tried hard with a 444 and the 2.5X and a BLR with a 1-4X for prairie whitetail. I tuned loads and tuned the rifles and got great groups from the bench. However when I trained out in the bush with big bore plinking I never could shoot a scope well. I sold the BLR because I had no use for a 243 and put the Leupold in a box, still have it. I think the 2.5X will go on my new Handi 22 Hornet so I can add a long reach coyote rifle to my safe.