When are iron sites better than a scope (if ever)

Luke S

WKR
Joined
Jul 7, 2019
Messages
336
I got to thinking the other day about the old idea that iron sites are faster than a scope for close up dangerous game (bears erc). I think we all agree that a red dot or LPVO is faster/better than iron sites.

But what about scopes that are more traditional, say 2x or 3x on the low end? What is the cut-off where you are better off pulling the scope off and using iron sites? In the old days I get that a fixed 4x or 6x scope might be pretty limiting. But my Trijicon on 2.5x seems faster than irons.

Has anyone tested this?
 
Better is subjective. I can shoot minute of deer faster iron sights than scope off hand within 100 yards.

I did pick up a red dot and turbull mount to put a red dot on one of my m94s but have not been able to bring myself to do it yet, not sure it will be faster honestly.

Speed with irons is a learned skill that can fade, i do like practicing it.
 
Offhand shots 100yards and in is all thats better for me shooting but nothing we hunt in the southeast moves around in enough light to use them for hunting.

I practice at home with irons and positions with Ruger No. 1 because I enjoy it. When I get a tag I immediately put that down and practice with a field rifle with scope until the trip is over.
 
Definitely a very subjective thing. Grew up hunting around a lot of crack shots in the farms of the Northeast. Virtually none of them hunted with iron sights and they killed lots of deer at all kinds of distances. A good-fitting rifle with a “traditional” scope on low power is pretty quick in the right hands even at close range.
 
I got to thinking the other day about the old idea that iron sites are faster than a scope for close up dangerous game (bears erc). I think we all agree that a red dot or LPVO is faster/better than iron sites.

But what about scopes that are more traditional, say 2x or 3x on the low end? What is the cut-off where you are better off pulling the scope off and using iron sites? In the old days I get that a fixed 4x or 6x scope might be pretty limiting. But my Trijicon on 2.5x seems faster than irons.

Has anyone tested this?

Yes those old 4x scope weren’t very useful - about 3/4 MOA is all I could get out of them. 6x is only good for 1/2 MOA out of my rifles, but 12x isn’t much better, so a more accurate rifle would be a better test I suppose.

2-1/2x on an accurate Contender pistol is good for 1 MOA - most rifle shooters should be able to get close to that if the rifle is capable.

1-1/2x has been good for about 1-3/4 to 2 MOA, although some make fun of me for not being able to shoot MOA.

I recently picked up a 1x Sightron scope that is very sharp and bright so it’s probably going to be very close to what the 1.5x can produce. It’s literally 1x so what you with the naked eye is what it looks like in the scope. It wouldn’t be as fast as a red dot, and doesn’t give quite the same visual feedback to barrel position as a peep.

With enough practice, the rifle with a peep sight I carried salmon fishing on Kodiak pointed as quickly as a traditional front bead on a shotgun. Red dots are more forgiving of misalignment, but a big ghost ring prep is immune to water and still shoots 2-1/2 MOA.
 
Training with one or another is the largest factor.

Pointing is fastest, provided training.
 
Some of y'all need to learn to tote a shotgun.
A shotgun with buckshot or slugs MIGHT be pretty feasible in select instances, but a shotgun is hardly what I would consider an ideal tool for hunting big game most anywhere I have ever hunted.

A guy hunting thick timber where I grew up could’ve maybe squeaked by with a setup like that, but about the time he stepped out of the timber and into the field where a big whitetail was 300 yards away, I’d bet he’d be wishing he had a centerfire-and probably one with a scope at that.
 
Buckshot is illegal for hunting here, so a shotgun is merely a less-accurate rifle.

Irons are better when its dumping snow in thick conifers and keeping a scope lens clear is more or less impossible. Around here thats specifically the conditions people look for and save vacation time for, so its a real consideration. Lots of guys keep a rifle with a large-aperture peep site on it just for those days.
 
A shotgun with buckshot or slugs MIGHT be pretty feasible in select instances, but a shotgun is hardly what I would consider an ideal tool for hunting big game most anywhere I have ever hunted.

A guy hunting thick timber where I grew up could’ve maybe squeaked by with a setup like that, but about the time he stepped out of the timber and into the field where a big whitetail was 300 yards away, I’d bet he’d be wishing he had a centerfire-and probably one with a scope at that.
I've had that 300+ yard experience with a 30-30 and 35 rem. That's why I bought BLRs to reach out.
Man driving deer, calling coyotes in thick timber, or similar I'm toting an old lem hunnert
 
Buckshot is illegal for hunting here, so a shotgun is merely a less-accurate rifle.

Irons are better when its dumping snow in thick conifers and keeping a scope lens clear is more or less impossible. Around here thats specifically the conditions people look for and save vacation time for, so its a real consideration. Lots of guys keep a rifle with a large-aperture peep site on it just for those days.
Buckshot wasn't allowed on WMA land in South Carolina back when I started deer hunting in the 70s. Unfortunately that was where deer were reintroduced and if you could hit a pie pan at 50 yards, you had a "shooter" shotgun ;)
 
Back
Top