A revolutionary concept in rifles!

guntech said:
What part? The fact I don't use them, the fact that the majority of hunters don't use them or that someday everyone will find them as useless as tits on a boar?I used iron sights until I found optical sights to be so much better... about 55 years ago. I continued to use iron sights in target shooting when required but for hunting and hunting in all conditions the quality scope is so much superior, especially after the ago of about 45... when your eyes start to lose some of their previous abilities...
Click to expand...

That one. Not denying the technology in optics has come a long way and in many cases is now superior to iron/open sights. However, compared to your usual opinions and input in general, that comment seemed to be very opinionated, bias and way out of character.
 
Johnn Peterson said:
That one. Not denying the technology in optics has come a long way and in many cases is now superior to iron/open sights. However, compared to your usual opinions and input in general, that comment seemed to be very opinionated, bias and way out of character.
Click to expand...

I am not criticizing anyone's choice of sight and old lever action rifles look so much better with iron sights and should remain that way as far as I am concerned. No one (everyone included) ages without the loss of focus between the front sight, the rear sight and the intended target... when that ability fades - iron sights are a frustrating choice compared to optics. This is a fact. Now 'useless as tits on a boar' is an opinion... as they are for me... I guess I should say someday everyone will find with failing sight ability, optics are a far superior sight. That's an opinion too... I think a lot of opinions get expressed... :)
 
I would never deny the superiority of optical sights but I think irons will be around for a long time yet.
My two sons first learned to shoot with irons and I think that's a good idea for any beginning shooter, and after learning the fundamentals of sighting and shooting with irons then step up to optics. I personally have dozens of rifles with scopes and several with iron sights... enjoy them all, and my boys now in their 40s still use iron sighted rifles when they want.
My medium and big bore rifles have irons as well as scopes with both choices being sighted in for given distances, thanks to QD scope mounts either can be used quickly..
 
The point is not whether one prefers a scope, or a Red Dot device, or iron sights, the point is that with the vast majority of rifles offered on the North
American market these days you are not given the choice. As far as I'm concerned, most manufacturers are selling an unfinished product, because
their products cannot be used for their intended purpose without further modification. If you do not spend extra money on some sort of aftermarket aiming
apparatus, most rifles are nothing more then really expensive clubs, or wall decorations. Having a set of iron sights on a rifle does not stop anyone
form making improvements like adding a scope if one so chooses. Not having iron sights, forces the consumer to spend more of their money
before they can have a functional product. I'd rather give my money to a company that is willing to afford me as many choices as possible. If you
prefer a scope, right on and no time did I say that I would not make use of a scope on my own rifles.
 
guntech said:
I am not criticizing anyone's choice of sight and old lever action rifles look so much better with iron sights and should remain that way as far as I am concerned. No one (everyone included) ages without the loss of focus between the front sight, the rear sight and the intended target... when that ability fades - iron sights are a frustrating choice compared to optics. This is a fact. Now 'useless as tits on a boar' is an opinion... as they are for me... I guess I should say someday everyone will find with failing sight ability, optics are a far superior sight. That's an opinion too... I think a lot of opinions get expressed... :)
Click to expand...

;)There you go.:cool: Back in character again:). See you at the show in Duncan January 5th? Hows chances for some guidence on disassembly and reassembly of a Schultz & Larsen bolt?
 
I agree with OP about iron sights. That's one thing I love about lever gun, they always have iron sights. Why is it so hard for companies to put irons? It's not like it's super expensive to add.
 
Johnn Peterson said:
;)There you go.:cool: Back in character again:). See you at the show in Duncan January 5th? Hows chances for some guidence on disassembly and reassembly of a Schultz & Larsen bolt?
Click to expand...

I'll probably be there... they are a little tricky... you will probably have it figured out by then...
 
Gotta agree on the lack of Iron Sights, as it pisses me right off.

So many great entry level rifles coming to the market, and none have friggin sights on them? Seriously WTF?

I started a thread awhile ago on the same topic, and I have decided to just build the gun I want, but this might change that.

I was thinking of taking a Ruger American in .270 win, and having the barrel chopped, and irons installed, but now that I have seen this I might be better off buying the CZ.

Of course i need this rifle for the Spring Bear hunt so can't wait too long. What is the ETA?
 
358 BLR said:
So Browning, Ruger, Remington, Winchester, Sako, Tikka, Savage and any other cheap manufacturer I may have missed, you can all kiss my hairy white a$$ and keep your
cheap sightless rifles; I'll continue to buy CZs and be better off for it.
Click to expand...

All of the above produce rifles with sights, just not every model.
 
For me it's the idea that a cheaper entry level gun is made much more uselful with irons on it.

For somebody new to hunting or not wanting to spend alot on a scope irons are a far better option. Far too many noobs buy a cheap combo package and the scope is friggin useless!!! They would be much better served with a set of irons for the same price!!!

My personal issue is simply a matter of beating the hell outta a gun mounted on a quad, and I have had expensive scopes fail. Don't want to have to run back to camp, or miss that shot when I can just pop the scope off and still be good for the week.
 
Its a money grab for the gun manufacturers and the businesses I tell yea. Why would gun manufactures make more rifles with irons when they can make you spend more money on having to buy a set of rings and a scope to make your gun useful. What gun company owns Burris? Beretta. What gun company owns Bushnell? Browning.

I have a CZ 550 LUX. Beautiful rifle with control feed and hare trigger. (Which the 557 is push feed with an adjustable trigger.) Even though I put a compact scope on it, I like the extra insurance that if the scope ####s up, I can just take it off and keep hunting. Sometimes I pull the scope off just to practice with the iron sights. The CZ 550 is a 19mm dovetail and the scope rings go back on in the notch so they don't loose zero from you taking it off. Great set up just can be a little hard to find rings for them.
 
hoytcanon said:
How is it hard finding QD rings... Most manufacturers make them and most LGS' carry them...
Click to expand...

The CZ 550 is a 19mm dovetail, the CZ 527 is a 16mm dovetail, and the CZ 513, 512, 452, and 455 are 11mm dovetail.

Go walk into Wholesale sports tomorrow and ask for 19mm dovetail rings. They will look at you like a cow staring at an incoming train. They had a hell of a time looking for them in their system and when they finally did find them, the only brands they could find that made 19mm rings were Burris, Leupold, CZ, and a special Alaskan company that made quick release 19mm rings. They didn't have any in stock and hand to special order them and needless to say, Canadian Tire, and Gone Fishing didn't have them either. You will not easily find rings for a CZ 550 like you would any Savage or Remington.
 
Mumbles Marble Mouth said:
and the CZ 513, 512, 452, and 455 are 11mm dovetail.
Click to expand...


No not all of them

2010-Catalog-Chart.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom