Adding irons to a Sako 375 h&h

na1lb0hm

na1lb0hm

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
380   0   0
Location
RMH, AB
I have a sako AV fiberclass in my safe thats been neglected by me for a few years now.

Not in the traditional rusting away sense, more just doesn’t have an optic and hasn’t been shot a ton.

I think no magnificent 375 h&h should be without irons - so I was kicking around getting some put on.

To be clear, this rifle isn’t mint by any means. The action/barrel appear to have been cerakoted, along with the stock and a potentially ostentatious red recoil pad.

So question: what irons and what configuration would you choose?
 
Back in the day I had a Sako AV that had no sights; I had a local 'smith mount a front ramp and sight, and got one of those wonderful little Sako aperture sights that could be mounted to the rear dovetail. Never actually needed it, but it was carried in my pocket, sighted-in and ready to quickly replace the scope in case something bad happened, on many hunts.
 
I have Skinner (Montana) peep (aperture) rears on the rear action and blade or bead fronts on all my hunting rifles, including my custom CZ .375 H&H. (I fill empty front notches with flats of polished buffalo horn. The original express sights were quality, classic and a really neat feature but for functionality a rear-action peep is superior.) I love 'em, the fastest sight acquisition of any site combo and as close to the accuracy of a scope as you will find in iron sights. Check out Skinner, they have a wide range of aperture sights for most any make of rifle and mail to Canada with good turnaround times. They make a point as well of designing their sights to be, aside from rugged, as simple and unobtrusive as is possible, which i also appreciate.
 
SuperCub said:
A spare scope would be easier and work better than open sights in a crunch.
Click to expand...
Depends on your situation. An aperture sight is as accurate as a scope within responsible hunting ranges, immune to the complications scopes can suffer from, give you faster sight acquisition, don't add the bulk/unsightly clutter/extra weight of a scope, and are absolutely better in the case where you are hunting in country where dangerous game might charge you. Last thing you want with an angry animal bearing down is a scope. I'd say the only reason a hunter needs a scope on a rifle is for big open country.
 
Apertures have their place and time but they are not the best option for everyone or for every rifle
and certainly not the best in a dangerous situation
imho ;)
 
thewoodsrunner said:
Depends on your situation. An aperture sight is as accurate as a scope within responsible hunting ranges, immune to the complications scopes can suffer from, give you faster sight acquisition, don't add the bulk/unsightly clutter/extra weight of a scope, and are absolutely better in the case where you are hunting in country where dangerous game might charge you. Last thing you want with an angry animal bearing down is a scope. I'd say the only reason a hunter needs a scope on a rifle is for big open country.
Click to expand...
I use low power scopes 1x to 2x on the low end. I carried a 375magnum in the Yukon twice with a 1.5-5. When you get down that low it works the same as an open sight esp if you keep both eyes open when shooting as you should.
 
SuperCub said:
I use low power scopes 1x to 2x on the low end. I carried a 375magnum in the Yukon twice with a 1.5-5. When you get down that low it works the same as an open sight esp if you keep both eyes open when shooting as you should.
Click to expand...
So why bother cluttering the gun up with a scope? It's an interesting subject to me. Once upon a time, in an era i suspect of many more great hunters shooting much more game than today, next to no one used a scope for anything. Even the military used peeps rather than scopes. Today it seems most hunters think its impossible to hunt without one. That's the culture today. Bought gun, must have scope.
 
thewoodsrunner said:
So why bother cluttering the gun up with a scope? It's an interesting subject to me. Once upon a time, in an era i suspect of many more great hunters shooting much more game than today, next to no one used a scope for anything. Even the military used peeps rather than scopes. Today it seems most hunters think its impossible to hunt without one. That's the culture today. Bought gun, must have scope.
Click to expand...
I've used lots of open sights over the years mostly receiver sights. I like them and do concede that a rifle does handle better with them than a scope. I just think that a low powered variable offers more shooting flexibility at close range and at moderate longer ranges and works better when it's getting close to legal end of the day. Also a decent scope in QD mounts can be very close in cost to quality open sights. YMMV.
 
thewoodsrunner said:
So why bother cluttering the gun up with a scope? It's an interesting subject to me. Once upon a time, in an era i suspect of many more great hunters shooting much more game than today, next to no one used a scope for anything. Even the military used peeps rather than scopes. Today it seems most hunters think its impossible to hunt without one. That's the culture today. Bought gun, must have scope.
Click to expand...
I actually really like Irons, but always feel like ill have to pass up 200+ y shots on game here without a scope. Praries...

Funnily enough, the last 2 years out here were about 75y shots.

Tough to get closer sometimes out here.
 
Mulletard said:
I actually really like Irons, but always feel like ill have to pass up 200+ y shots on game here without a scope. Praries...

Funnily enough, the last 2 years out here were about 75y shots.

Tough to get closer sometimes out here.
Click to expand...
I totally get that. I lived out on the plains for years, but was not rifle hunting during those years. I've often speculated whether i'd be forced to use a scope out there. I suppose it would absolutely be situation dependent. As it is, i hunt the foothills woods. I'm always mystified at why anyone would hunt with a scope out there until i remember many guys hunt by hoping to surprise something on a cutline, which is not really woods hunting anymore, it's more like plains hunting in a way. I cannot think of a game animal i've shot at over 50 yards hunting the woods. Not that i wouldn't necessarily give it a go, depends. Most shot were under 50. My past two seasons my bucks were 20 and 25. No one needs a scope under such a scenario unless it's a failing eyesight thing.
 
thewoodsrunner said:
I totally get that. I lived out on the plains for years, but was not rifle hunting during those years. I've often speculated whether i'd be forced to use a scope out there. I suppose it would absolutely be situation dependent. As it is, i hunt the foothills woods. I'm always mystified at why anyone would hunt with a scope out there until i remember many guys hunt by hoping to surprise something on a cutline, which is not really woods hunting anymore, it's more like plains hunting in a way. I cannot think of a game animal i've shot at over 50 yards hunting the woods. Not that i wouldn't necessarily give it a go, depends. Most shot were under 50. My past two seasons my bucks were 20 and 25. No one needs a scope under such a scenario unless it's a failing eyesight thing.
Click to expand...
Totally. We live on the edge of quappelle valley. So the opportunity for wooded close range is there. But its bald prarie outside of that, and you just never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom