Iron sights on bolt rifles

[lonely_wolf]

The mini rail on the front of the barrel is pretty clear.

Attaching the rear iron is where my concern lies. Correct me if I am wrong, but the rear mini rail fits on the side of the action. Does this mean I would need to have my A1-3 (700SA) cut so that this mini rail would fit? Or will it fit above the stock line?

Is there an alternative? Is there a way to mount the rear iron section directly onto the rifle's pic rail? Or a model made to attach to the pic rail? Seems this would be easier- Mount irons to front rail and pic rail.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is there an alternative?</div></div>

Most Remington's I've seen have two holes drilled and tapped on the left side of the reciever for sight blocks.

Put the sight such as the Redfield Olympic on you can talke if off/put it on at your leasure.

I have serveral rifles with this set up. You don't loose your zero by taking it off and putting it back on.

This is a Winchester M-70,

This the same set up on a Rem 700

This is the set up using a scope, (On a H&R 5200). You'll note the sight block does not interfer with the scope.

It's handy and works quite well.

 

[lonely_wolf]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

I've never seen a Rem with the holes predrilled on the side of the receiver. If I have my smith drill them and add the block, would my stock need to be modified? Or by design do they fit above the stock?

Beautiful rifle, by the way.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

I didn't have to modify mine for the block. I thought I would for the sight itself (see the Win picture) but I jumped the gun. Didn't need it.

Brownells, Creedmore, Champion's choice sells the blocks. CMP has the Redfield Sights in their E-Store under accessaries.

 

[lonely_wolf]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

Thanks for the information Kraig!

 

[MAT4-82]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

Nowadays most folks forgo drilling and tapping for a front base and use the barrel band type front sight base. Maybe yours is already tapped? It also might make a difference what type of front sight you are intending to use and for what purpose. If your going to shoot Palma you will probably want to go with an adjustable front. As for the rear there are some sights which fit on a scope base. RPA used to make one. If you go with a side mount base such as Kraig shows you may have to inlet the stock for it. Another option is a scope base which includes the iron sight base. I prefer this last method personally.

 

[Defusion]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

This might be a stupid idea, but wouldn't it be possible to use AR type BUIS that attaches to the picatinny rail?
(No, i have never tried it, so might not work at all, but i'd be curious to know)

 

[mark5pt56]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

All depends on what you want the sights for.
This is a handy little one I did for my son when he started hunting at 12.
NECG banded front with gold bar insert sight and hood. Rear is a Ashley or XS ghost ring base.

Hard at play and the ever watchful eye

 

[lonely_wolf]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

The idea was more for the 'backup' option. I've only seen the M24 set up for irons so I figured it was the way to go (Front and back blocks). I’ve also seen a similar M14 setup added to 700’s by other Hide members- most recently VJJ's Beiber.

Would the AR15 type rear work with one of the Palma style sights on the front rail?

 

[KYS]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

I dont see the functionality in iron sights on todays bolt action rifles. And most of the sights offered will not do what we want them to do, as they cover the target and sight picture is lost. I think it's more or less for looks now.

 

[Papa Zero Three]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I dont see the functionality in iron sights on todays bolt action rifles. And most of the sights offered will not do what we want them to do, as they cover the target and sight picture is lost. I think it's more or less for looks now. </div></div>


I'd disagree with you on their covering the target. The iron sites we use on the M-24 are interchangeable with different front site posts based on user preference. Likewise, we had to do the NRA qualification with iron sites and pass it before we even thought about adding a scope. While most people will never use iron sites on their systems for recreational purposes if you're serious about having to use your weapon in the field,having back up irons and knowing how to use them is pretty paramount. I can attest to the functionality of them, if anything, you gain a greater respect for them and thank God that you typically have a scope as it requires more skill to engage targets with the old Mark 1 eyeball.

With that said, most M24 iron sites sit in their box, I'd say its become a lost art to be able to shoot a rifle at a distance with strictly iron sites outside of the group of people who compete.

 

[MAT4-82]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

OK disregard my 1st post. I thought you were setting up a bullseye rifle. IMO backup sights are for if your scope goes bad so I would figure this would require the removal of the scope anyway unless your rifle setup is condusive to a co-witness configuration. That being the case I'd opt for another small low power optic or red dot. your only looking for something for mid range at most anyway. The iron sights that were originally issued with the M-24 were never intended to be an operational backup sight for deployed snipers IMO. Mark5pt56s setup is pretty clean if that is what your looking for.

 

[Papa Zero Three]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MAT 4-82</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The iron sights that were originally issued with the M-24 were never intended to be an operational backup sight for deployed snipers IMO.</div></div>

Why do you say that? Ever time I went down range, the box with the iron sights went with me as did those on other teams. Don't get me wrong, I don't know anyone who would want to use them over the scope. However, having a weapon system dead lined from use due to the scope failing isn't what anyone wants to hear when you're in the box. Iron sites are like a spare tire, they are ugly and uncool looking and sit there hidden away until you need them. And when you do, you're glad they were there.

 

[MAT4-82]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

Because redfield palma sights are not even close to being field practical.You have to be aware of the political environment in the Army when the M24 system was speced. Much the same scenario resulted in the sights on the M16A2. Concession to the competitive marksmanship side of the structure. As I mentioned in a previous post a more practical approach would have been a smaller less complex optic that would allow more complete operational capability than irons should the primary optic go down. How would you range effectively with irons. (Remember in those days most of the gear you have now didn't exist) Don't you think you would do better work with an ACOG set up for your rifle than irons? About same size package as the case for the Redfields.
Sorry just my opinion .

 

[Papa Zero Three]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How would you range effectively with irons. (Remember in those days most of the gear you have now didn't exist) Don't you think you would do better work with an ACOG set up for your rifle than irons? </div></div>

HA, that gave me a chuckle. I say that because we spent a good deal of time learning how to do range estimation and passing graded exams using the Mark 1 eyeball. We didn't have ballistic computers,laser range finders or Kestrel wind meters when I went through the SOTIC course. As for using a ACOG or similar optic, now a days thats an option and we have enough extra optics on most teams that we can use such a device. However, in the past, we didn't have that option as we were just getting M4s with removable carrying handles and didn't even have ACOGs. The only weapon systems with optics at the time were the M21 and the M24 and shortly there after the SR-25, all others used iron sights. I remember when we got issued the first ACOGs in fact. Another thing to consider is the height of most of todays optics ( ACOG, EOTECH, etc) when mounted on a Pic rail and where they would sit when mounted on the M24 and the shooters line of sight.

 

[Skeld1]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

How about a red dot mounted at an offset? Is that worthwhile on a bolt gun?

 

[lonely_wolf]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

This has turned into a very interesting thread.

 

[Papa Zero Three]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Skeld1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How about a red dot mounted at an offset? Is that worthwhile on a bolt gun? </div></div>

That is viable and there are a few options for mounting doctor and similar mini red dots on scopes but these are not viewed as backups to the scope but for quick,short distance engagements with the weapon system. But thats not to say that it couldn't be used deliberately for engaging targets out to 200-300 meters in a pinch.

Here is an example: http://www.opticsplanet.com/gg-g-b-comp-30mm-riflescope-ring-accessories.html

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because redfield palma sights are not even close to being field practical.</div></div>

You apparently haven't used the Redfield Sight very much. They are highly accurate and reliable. They do hold up will. If set up right you take them off without changing your zero.

As to range finding, or what some people say is the lack of range estimation with iron sights.

Before Laser Range finders and Mil Dot scopes I taught sniper schools uing the M1C/D. And I taught range finding using the front post of the M1.

The average width of the front sight on the M1 is .076. You take your 19X40 E series target or the average width of the soldiers shoulders, you have a range finder.

If the 19 inch target is 19 inchs, you divide the sight width into 19 and it wll give you the range.

So if the .076 front sight post is the same size as the target, its 250 yards away. 19/.076 = 250. If the target is half the size of the front sight, its 500 yards away.

Simple. Like the Mil Dot, a bit of practice and can get pretty good.

You can do that with any size target and any size front post or crosshairs if you know the width of the front sight.

In stead of saying something can't be done, we just need to Soldier UP and think a little bit.

Maybe go back to teaching soldiers how to estimate range. You wont alway have a sniper with his gismos or an FA to work things out for you.

Learn to use your map for range est., people been doing that since they've had maps.

People talk all the time about Carlos Hathcock. He didn't use Mil Dots, he didn't use range finders, he became a master sniper by using his head.

 

[chainring]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

I was thinking about this last week, but what I want is a set of XS or RTS offset sights on my 700. Would work if I could achieve a rail at the.receiver and at the forend that are on the same plane.

 

[Andy Warhog]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because redfield palma sights are not even close to being field practical.</div></div>

You apparently haven't used the Redfield Sight very much. They are highly accurate and reliable. They do hold up will. If set up right you take them off without changing your zero.

As to range finding, or what some people say is the lack of range estimation with iron sights.

Before Laser Range finders and Mil Dot scopes I taught sniper schools uing the M1C/D. And I taught range finding using the front post of the M1.

The average width of the front sight on the M1 is .076. You take your 19X40 E series target or the average width of the soldiers shoulders, you have a range finder.

If the 19 inch target is 19 inchs, you divide the sight width into 19 and it wll give you the range.

So if the .076 front sight post is the same size as the target, its 250 yards away. 19/.076 = 250. If the target is half the size of the front sight, its 500 yards away.

Simple. Like the Mil Dot, a bit of practice and can get pretty good.

You can do that with any size target and any size front post or crosshairs if you know the width of the front sight.

In stead of saying something can't be done, we just need to Soldier UP and think a little bit.

Maybe go back to teaching soldiers how to estimate range. You wont alway have a sniper with his gismos or an FA to work things out for you.

Learn to use your map for range est., people been doing that since they've had maps.

People talk all the time about Carlos Hathcock. He didn't use Mil Dots, he didn't use range finders, he became a master sniper by using his head. </div></div>
That's really interesting. Do you have any links to read up on using the front sight to range?

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's really interesting. Do you have any links to read up on using the front sight to range?</div></div>

Nah, we didn't have "links" back then.

Its really simple, as I said, divide your width by the front sight width. It will give you a referene point.

Lets go back aways. The 30-40 Krag had a front sight with a uniform thickness of 0.05. So lets take the 19 inch wide target.

19/.05=380 yards. So if the front sight is exactly the same size as the target its 380 yards away. If the front sight is twice the size of the target, its 760, it its half the size of the target its 190 yards away.

Just takes practice, referencing the front sight with the size of the target.

We were talking about the Redfield Olympic sights. The come with post and a varity of appeture sights. I always liked the 3 MM sight. Its more accurate in my opinion, but not practical to use for range finding, so your the post insert that came with your front sight.

You can do the same thing with crosshairs if you know the width.

 

[Papa Zero Three]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

Good post kraigWY on the use of irons.It's good to see that others haven't forgotten these skills.

 

[VJJPunisher]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I dont see the functionality in iron sights on todays bolt action rifles. And most of the sights offered will not do what we want them to do, as they cover the target and sight picture is lost. I think it's more or less for looks now. </div></div>

Really? i use mine all the time, even deer hunt with a bolt gun with irons in terrain that makes my scope worthless

 

[Fred @ Bison Tactical]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

If anyone is interested, Appleseed teaches ranging based on the width of the front sight post. Mostly because the method of teaching is based on the older style of positional shooting and the M1 Garand. Everything kraigWY is saying is pretty much standard from the Appleseed ranging curriculum.

 

[lestersurv]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

Rem 700s up to A prefix were tapped for side-mount aperture sight bases. Winchester 70s up until the mid 80s. Several makers, williams sight esp have offered rear aperture sight that mounts on standard rear receiver bridge. Sako had a dovetail mount rear aperture that would rotate for 100 200 yd elevation. The NM rear sight hood rotates to give two indexes for each elevation click...

Have a Redfield International rear with adj iris. It is anything but "field delicate". Barrel band front sight is another matter, but you can use a standard Williams or other ramp, long as you aren't expecting 1000yd dial-in w/o serious front sight elevation... Rather a Great field gun system, esp w/the adj iris.

There are several competition scope base systems that allow Warner and other match sights to be mounted on receiver bridge. Mo's shooting offers one, iirc. Look at the Brownells catalog. Can probably use a barrel band front sight w/o a machined relief if your barrel has minimal taper behind the muzzle. See Brownells for Lipski bands and height adjustments, plus other sight options.

If you own a Sako TRG-22/42, they offer "emergency sight sets, w/mirage band

 

[MAT4-82]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

IMO redfield configuration sights would be much to prone to damage in a tactical environment. I know they are adequate sights mechanically I didn't say otherwise. Any number of smaller low power optics could have been used at that time similar to the scopes that were used on WW2 mausers etc. The mounts for a spare would obviously be made to put it at the same height as the primary. All I'm really saying is why carry an extra set of iron sights when for the same effort you could have a spare optic. This does not apply if they are a couple oz mounted on the rifle. Sorry to have highjacked your thread. My apologies

 

[Papa Zero Three]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SlowNoisyDeadly</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because redfield palma sights are not even close to being field practical.</div></div>

You apparently haven't used the Redfield Sight very much. They are highly accurate and reliable. They do hold up will. If set up right you take them off without changing your zero.

As to range finding, or what some people say is the lack of range estimation with iron sights.

Before Laser Range finders and Mil Dot scopes I taught sniper schools uing the M1C/D. And I taught range finding using the front post of the M1.

The average width of the front sight on the M1 is .076. You take your 19X40 E series target or the average width of the soldiers shoulders, you have a range finder.

If the 19 inch target is 19 inchs, you divide the sight width into 19 and it wll give you the range.

So if the .076 front sight post is the same size as the target, its 250 yards away. 19/.076 = 250. If the target is half the size of the front sight, its 500 yards away.

Simple. Like the Mil Dot, a bit of practice and can get pretty good.

You can do that with any size target and any size front post or crosshairs if you know the width of the front sight.

In stead of saying something can't be done, we just need to Soldier UP and think a little bit.

Maybe go back to teaching soldiers how to estimate range. You wont alway have a sniper with his gismos or an FA to work things out for you.

Learn to use your map for range est., people been doing that since they've had maps.

People talk all the time about Carlos Hathcock. He didn't use Mil Dots, he didn't use range finders, he became a master sniper by using his head. </div></div>
That's really interesting. Do you have any links to read up on using the front sight to range? </div></div>

Let me check my stuff, I may have some documentation still.

 

[Powermac]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

If you want sights mounted readily on the rifle as backup, that's small, robust, variable iris, M1913 interface and suitable height for a bolt action rifle, the first that comes to my mind is the AI iron sights, they work quite well.
That would be my first choice for back up irons, on a bolt rifle for field use.
Better then a ghost ring setup and solutions for ARs.

The match type sights are better, used them quite allot on Anschutz 22lr and Sauer 200 str.
And as pointed out by some very knowledgeable people they work excellent.
They are bigger and more prone to taking damage though.

Last option is buying fx a Spuhr mount, and attaching a Aimpoint, doctor etc. either on top, offset 45 degrees in upper position or on the side of the scope.

All options work, mostly a matter of personal preference and use i guess.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

If you can find FM 23-5, the 1958 version (later models dont include the M1C/D), it has a great section on range estimation.


Besides the sight, the scope redical also can be used for range est.

For example the M-84 scope has a 3 MOA post sight. Meaning the post covers 3 MOA per 100 yards.

So looking at the 19 inch E-series target, 3 MOA covers 1/6 of the target. At 200 it would cover 1/3, 300 about 1/3, 400 yards 2/3s, etc etc.

So using the relation of the redical on the target gives you the range.

Don't discount all those old military marksmanship manuels, they beat the crap they put out today.

Sure some things are wrong (Using 5-23, the Breathing Part is something I totally disagree with), but over all they are better manuels for teaching marksmanship.

As to the Redfield sights, they are a lot more durable then many lead us to believe, but they are light, they don't have to be carried on the rifle, yet when they are, you don't have to re-zero the rifle.

If we go back in history a bit, one of the main reasons we went to another rifle instead of just changing ammo on the Krag was because soldiers, after dealing with the Spanish Mausers in Cuba wanted a clip fed rifle.

Lets say the sniper carrying a bolt gun wants to use his rifle as a battle rifle, with rapid fire capabilities. You can clip load a bolt gun with irons, you can't with a scope unless you have an offset scope like the Garand.

Don't discount the old rifle set ups, they still work.

I have a Model 70 1000 yard rifle that is set up for scope (any rifle any sights) and irons, Redfields (for any rifle iron sights).

Checking back in some of my old score books I've averaged better scores with my Redfield Olympic then I have with my Weaver T-10.

(The best 1000 yard score I fired was with my M1A in Service Rifle Match).

When I was running sniper schools using the M1C/Ds, we found out a lot of guys could shoot as well to 900 yards as those with the M-84s, and were every bit as good using the irons for range finding as the redical on the M84.

Anyway go out and play with your irons doing range est. The worse case is you'll have some fun.

 

[KYS]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VJJPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I dont see the functionality in iron sights on todays bolt action rifles. And most of the sights offered will not do what we want them to do, as they cover the target and sight picture is lost. I think it's more or less for looks now. </div></div>

Really? i use mine all the time, even deer hunt with a bolt gun with irons in terrain that makes my scope worthless </div></div>

Well, that's awesome. But how much deer hunting are you doing over seas with it now?

If you all want to rock iron sights, go right ahead. It's just my opinion that they are hokey on todays rifles. If a gunsmith called me up and said "Hey, I want to put iron sights on your brand new custom rifle" I would tell him to jump in a lake. I think videos that are proof on concept, like LL's video in which he removed his scope because it was damaged and went to an ACOG, are the things we should be considering.

Again, I am not saying you are wrong for doing it. It just would not be an option I would pick for my personal rifle. Why adapt old school technology to an ever expanding wealth of technology?

 

[Papa Zero Three]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why adapt old school technology to an ever expanding wealth of technology?</div></div>

That's a good question and I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint on this as I advocate the saying "work smart, not hard". However, I have learned a few things the hard way while on the two way rifle range. Anything that relies on technology and or batteries will at some point let you down guaranteed. I don't know about you, but I carry more crap now than back in the LBE days through no choice of my own. Carrying a second ACOG or other optic just isn't feasible or practical sometimes. However, a pair of iron sites weigh next to nothing, don't require batteries and will fit in an altoids tin. In some cases Low tech is more reliable than high tech and just because we have something newer is no reason to completely forget about what has worked in the past.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why adapt old school technology to an ever expanding wealth of technology?</div></div>

ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE

Arctic Conditions.

Rice Paddy Mud

Piss Poor PLF

I could go on, buy you should get the point.

 

[Driftwood]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

You won't get much more hard core than Simo Hayha, or closer to the zombie apocolypes than he did in WWII. He managed to rack up over 500 kills, in 100 days, using his Mosin Nagant and iron sights, which he preferred to a scope. Obviously, he seemed to know what he was doing.

http://www.simohayha.com/

Iron sights have their place in the modern world to be sure. Like Kraig, I find I actually am a bit more accurate with iron sights. I think part of it is I have to pay more attention to the basics. Unlike Simo, I prefer to use a scope on both my M4 and M24, but I think there is great value in knowing how to use iron sights even in the modern world. When I find I am not shooting as well as I normally do, my first fix is to jump on a rifle with iron sights for a little while. I always shoot better afterwards. After shooting a target with irons, the scope seems like a "chip shot".

Its not really the same, but when I had an EOTech on my M4, I would always use my back iron sights when shooting past 100 yards, then switch to my EOTech when I moved in closer. I found I was more accurate. I currently have an ACOG on my M4, I can shoot just as good if not better with iron sights, but I would have to take my ACOG off to use them. Overall, I prefer my ACOG to iron sights on my M4, but I wouldn't just ditch them because I have one. I suppose I could always carry around another ACOG, except they are not cheap and I am only issued one.

 

[seanh]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

in short, yes...and quite smart. It's not hard to have a scope screw up on you and if all you have is that scope...you're screwed.
Oh, yea, then there is the "use your backup rifle" response. How many people carry two rifles on their back? That other rifle is likely at camp.

You can use a picitinny rail sight for the rear and have your front drilled and tapped for a picitinny/lyman post or use a clamp on post. If you do the clamp on, you'll need the front 1" turned down so it's not tapered.

http://www.jprifles.com/1.6.4.php
http://www.rilesmachine.com/
http://www.creedmoorsports.com/shop/Phoenix_Precision_Top_Mount_Sight.html

my current configuration doesn't have open sight provisions but when the new bbl is put on, you can bet it will be setup for open sights.

 

[SquarePizza]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

I shot iron sights my whole life, just switched to glass over the last year.

Unfortunately, my current barrel is tapped with an odd front sight spacing, so I cannot get an aftermarket sight base to fit. In the next year or so I plan to rebarrel and will most definitely be having the smith set me up for a detachable front globe.

Honestly the biggest reasons for my switch were being able to see shot placement on game at longer distances, and my right eye is not and cannot be corrected to 20/20.... they can get it close, but not close enough. But I really miss the looks of the rifle with irons on her.

 

[lonely_wolf]

Re: Iron sites on bolt rifles

@Everyone in the thread: Thank you for the links and informative discussion!