liberty1743

Okay, I'm probably going to get a lot of flack for this, but open sights look cool! I'll probably get even more flack for this: I think virtually all rifles should have them.

Don't get me wrong; I love optics and I have them on all of my rifles. They make most of us better/more human hunters, and they are incredibly durable. With that said, however, they are not indestructible.

Okay, you can have a backup rifle or scope on hand, but what if the sh*t hits the fan? I'm talking aboutthe somewhat worse-case scenarios: depression, civil war, nuclear holocaust, meteor hits the earth, etc...

In the worst-case scenarios, manufacturing has all but ceased, people are foraging for gun parts, and relying on weapons to hunt and defend themselves from god knows who or what.

When and if the sh*t does hit the fan (which seems like a historical certainty), you may never return home for your gun collection/stash of optics.

I’d feel better knowing there is plenty of reloading equipment stashed all over the place along with rifles that will at least have open sights. I think they look great, and they’re the constant reminder that you always need to be prepared and that you always need to be able to defend yourself and your country from governments foreign and domestic. They’re not expensive, so why not?

Manufacturers will not include them, however, if there is no demand. What do others think?

Bullet Hole Bailey

Not Sure about the whole Meteor hitting earth part

But my 700 has a scope and open sights. If one goes bad I take it off and use the others. Although I doubt that a Leupold scope will just "go bad"

I do agree, many guns look awesome with open sights, and some look naked without scopes [8D]

I think the manufacturers should include the open sights and have the barrels drilled and tapped incase you want to put iron sights on.

One of the best hunters I know strictly hunts with a 30-06 and a peep sight. He kills deer every year and is one neat guy. He lives off the deer he shoots so that peep is everything to him. He uses a peep for simplicity and reliability. And with his core-lokt bullets, Id sure hate to be the buck that walks infront of him.


BHB

liberty1743

Do you have any pics of your 700? Are your open sights plastic or metal? It's refreshing to hear about someone who still possesses the skill to hunt with open sights. I can't make that claim, but I'm hoping to change that (at least for target shooting). I have Warne quick release rings, so as soon as I get some sights installed, I'll be good to go.

stubblejumper

I have no desire to pay extra for open sights that will never be used,and will turn a nice smooth barrel into one that will hang up on things.

driftrider

I have more than enough skill to hunt with open sights. What I lack is the desire to do so. Modern telescopic sights are, if one is willing to spend the money for quality glass, just as reliable as any open sight, while affording a number of very real advantages. This is why most rifles made today are pre-drilled and tapped for scope mounts, and why most modern CF rifles don't even have open sights installed. The manufacturers know that with quality affordable optics readily available that almost no one would opt NOT to take advantage of the benefits of the telescopic sight, so they omit the open sights as both a cost saving and aesthetic measure. I say aesthetic because they also know that the vast majority of us think that a scoped rifle looks better with a clean barrel.

Mike

liberty1743

Mike, I think I covered the fact that I am not looking to replace optics (and that all of my rifles will always have them as long as I have a say about it). Obviously you are right about the reason most if not all modern rifles come drilled and dapped for glass. Moreover, it is obvious why manufacturers find it profitable to eliminate them too. I do not, however, agree with your statement that a clean-barreled scoped rifle looks better than one maintaining open sights.

Even if most agree with you that they'd rather, one, have the aesthetics of a clean barrel, and two, have the minimal cost savings over maintaining open sights for backup purposes; it still doesn't mean that not having open sights is the best choice in regards to the evolution of our hunting and fighting weapons. I’m sure there are a lot of traditional or primitive muzzleloaders that would disagree with you about the aesthetics as well.

You’re right, optics are probably just as reliable as steel open sights 99.9999% of the time. An objective lens, however, will not hold up to a blunt object as well as a steel iron sight will. It’s not a large price to pay to cover the eventualities if you are fighting for your life or trying to find food to survive. One thing is for sure, if the scope goes, you will not be nearly as successful taking aim as you would if you had had a nice pair of open sights on your barrel.

Lastly, I wasn't implying you didn't have the skill to hunt with an open sight. I was stating that I lacked that skill and am sure many others, who now buy their first guns with optics, lack that skill as well. It's not just me saying it; people who write about it professionally make the same claim. It's a lost art and maybe it should be (IMO).

stubblejumper

Front sights that obstruct the view through the scope are a hindrance,not an advantage.Many front sight blades are as easily bent,as a scope tube is to damage to the point of rendering it useless.If the blade does not bend,it can still be moved in it's dovetail.Clean barrels do not snag like a front sight can.

liberty1743

Granted, those areimportant concerns. Done right, you can install extremely durible open sightsthat will not obscure your vision through the scope. I read the following entry from a 2006 blog earlier, and I agree with the author:

As one of the ones "learning" on this thread, I'll have to chime in.

I actually have had a scope failue, in the field, and on a backpack hunt. Last year. Being that I haven't been doing this type hunting long, I feel that the event occurred quickly in my career. I think that has made the value of iron backups more emboldened.

I was walking in typical Adirondack "big woods" with over 1.5' of snow on the ground. I was stepping over a fallen tree when my leg got caught on one of its limbs beneath the snow. My rifle was slung over my shoulder at the time. I fell backwards, pinghing the rifle between my back and the body of the tree. The scope made direct contact with the tree.

This wasn't a terrible dramatic fall, or a terribly long and painful one, either. But it was enough of a jolt to screw up a premium scope (trijicon)in good leupold steel rings. The T3 was fine. In fact, I thought absolutely NOTHING about the impact. Later that day, I had a shot on a buck. He was 30yds from me. I shot, and watched the snow fall off a pine tree, 20' up and to the left of him. Would have been more accurate throwing a rock. 2 days earlier, that rifle with that scope was shooting 1-hole 100yd groups.

While I can see that guys like timberline and Brad have done away with them for obviously good reasons, I can say that a LOT of my shots are close enough on game to say that irons could do the job if pressed into service. What does anyone suppose their weight/cost was worth to me at the moment that I realized I just saved/spent/prepped all year to go "camping with a big game license in my pocket"?

I wouldn't build a gun to go out to Brad's country and bother with backup irons when i'm going to laser 300+ yard targets. But in my woods?

I'm building a m70 lh rifle. Edge stock, lilja barrel, leupold scope, blah, blah. Can anyone imagine how furious I'd be with all that work, if that rifle becme completely incapacitated by a similar fall? Not half as furious as when I would remind myself that this already happened ONCE to me, and I failed to prepare.

So, I lean towards having B/U Irons on a rifle. I think if that experience didn't happen to me, Brad's thoughts regarding irons would ring true just like most everything he types about the outdoors. But, for now, my experience with a failure trumps everyone. If that gun goes 10 years of heavy hunting and the irons never again come into play, Kimber may have finally by then, heard that some guys shoot Lefty and have built a LH Montana. Then I'll dump the irons and do a lighter rifle. Which, when I consider how much longer Brad has been doing this, I realize that I'm following along nearly the EXACT path he took. I'm just a bit behind.

Plus, what if there is sign of bear scat while I'm walking? I'll need to be able to get the scope off quickly so I can handle a charge in heavy cover. /images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

driftrider

If the buck was only 30 yards away, and the bullet hit 20 FEET from the animal, then the scope damage, I would think, should have been obvious. That's a BIG angular offset. 20" (inches) at 30 yards I'd believe could be unnoticeable damage, but 20' at 30 yards(!) something had to be rattling around and/or visibly damaged to shift the point of impact 800 MOA.

I'm not saying that I disbelieve that the scope was damaged, but I can't believe it was off by that much without being obviously busted.

Mike

liberty1743

Yeah, I immediately thought the same thing. He was exaggerating, but missed nonetheless.