For close quarters bush hunting, nothing replaces good Iron sights

What do you want to know? My advice for starters, is you get what you pay for. I've run Aimpoint COMP series and T1, Burris Fastfire 2, EoTech, Trijicon RMR and recently a Bushnell TRS25. I hear good things about the Bushnell on centrefire guns but I've only run it on my rimfire so can't comment for sure. The Burris is the next most economical(not cheap, economical) reddot. It holds up well and is very compact. The Aimpoint COMP series is bombproof but larger in size, more akin to flattop rifles like an AR(naturally, its the market they were designed for). The T1 is tops but comes at a price. Eotech is decent, although they're quite large, expensive, and there have been QC issues in the past 5 years or so. The RMR I run is the dual illuminated and its awersome. No issues and no batteries required...Ever. I ran a buddies RMR with the battery powered reddot and it was just as nice. My only gripe about it was the auto adjust illumination, which was a pain at times when you wanted to turn down the dot. The newer model is available with a manual adjustable dot. Trijicon is tops and it too comes at a price.

For your 305 or the 300win I would start with a Burris fastfire or a Trijicon RMR. If you wanted to risk it you could go with the TRS25($120 give or take) but I suspect the recoil may destroy it.


Average prices below. If you shop around you can find some deals.
T1- $500-700
COMP series $500-700
EoTech $500-700
Trijicon RMR $480-600
Burris Fastfire $350ish
Bushnell TRS25 $120ish

TDC
 
Thanks for the info. Just put a Sightmark holo sight on the m305 for fun. Will get out to the range after xmas. As for my 300 win mag, I have zero issues with the Bausch and Lomb scope. It has been on that rifle for 16 yrs, never a problem and always kept zero.
 
I agree with some of the earlier posters that say a ghost ring is a great option. I have a Williams peep that I unscrewed the aperature out of to make it more like a ghost ring. It's mounted on a Rem 7600 carbine and is a very handy bush gun. If you are hunting with 40-50 yard shots, it would be perfect.

The problem with illuminated sights is that as light fades and your pupils adjust to the dim light, suddenly looking through a red dot type of sight can mess up your newly aquired night vision. That being said, Trijicon makes a very nice 1-4x24 illuminated scope that you can adjust the available light if you are interested. It's pricey but top notch
 
rascal1 said:
Thanks for the info. Just put a Sightmark holo sight on the m305 for fun. Will get out to the range after xmas. As for my 300 win mag, I have zero issues with the Bausch and Lomb scope. It has been on that rifle for 16 yrs, never a problem and always kept zero.
Click to expand...

Don't mean to be a downer but that sightmark will likely fail you sooner rather than later. Its a cheap way of trying a reddot but in my experience the cheap stuff doesn't accurately represent the sight picture and clarity of quality units. Which often leads to unjustified negative opinions of reddots in general.




Tdc
 
Well the idea with using the SIght Mark unit is to find out if I like the red dot type sight at all. Then if I do, I can always upgrade to a higher quality unit down the road. Better than spending a ton of money on something and finding out it is not my kettle of fish. I get to keep my dialed in battle sights for back up as well.

TDC said:
Don't mean to be a downer but that sightmark will likely fail you sooner rather than later. Its a cheap way of trying a reddot but in my experience the cheap stuff doesn't accurately represent the sight picture and clarity of quality units. Which often leads to unjustified negative opinions of reddots in general.




Tdc
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the input Jerry. I am not interested in putting a $1000 optic on a $500 chinese rifle. I am not worried so much about long range shooting, I have a Browning A bolt .300 MAG for that. The M14 is just for fun range shooting and a bit of deer hunting. A low to medium priced red dot is really about all I need.

Mystic Precision said:
I think you will find the new SIII 1-7x24 will change your mind about an optic vs open sights at very very close range as well as much further then most will shoot at game.

Jerry
Click to expand...
 
Truglo makes a red dot/green dot optic. I'm unsure how it will hold up to use/abuse as they are pretty low priced items. Myself I would save up my cash for an Aimpoint that many of these European hunters happily use on wild boar in the dark forests.

good luck in your quest :)
 
I'm currently using Aimpoint Micro H1s on both of my close-in brush hunting rifles. One is a Marlin 1894SS in 44Mag, and the other is a Ruger Mini30 stainless. Both have decent backup sights as well. The Marlin has XS front and rear, and the Ruger has the factory sights with the front post marked with flourescent orange. The Micro sits low enough that cheekweld is not an issue. I've used Eotechs, but I prefer the single bigger dot on the Aimpoint, and the Eotech does not agree with the astigmatism in my eyes at all. I'm using a Fastfire II on my Mossberg 930 tactical shotty. I actually prefer it in some ways to the Micro because it is more 'open', but I don't like the auto intensity feature. Works fine for multigun matches during the day, but in hunting situations I prefer to be able to set the brightness manually. The TRS25 actually sits a bit lower than the Micro, so works in some applications where the Micro doesn't. Specifically, mounted on an Ultimak rail on my M14S I can get a lower 1/3 co-witness with the TRS but only optimistically get a lower 1/16 co-witness with the Micro. I'm running a TRS on my Marlin Papoose and quite like it. I haven't had any of my RDS let me down so far and find them a definite improvement over any iron sight config I've used for close-in hunting applications. However, if I absolutely had to go back to irons, the XS rear ghostring combined with their white-stripe front would be my first choice. YMMV
 
I've got the same problem-my eyes simply can't focus on iron sights,but I found if you either replace the rear sight with a ''bullseye'' sight or JB weld a washer on it [same effect] -you might still be able to use iron sights.I also put a small dot of flourescent nail polish enamel on the front sight.Huge improvement.I can shoot with it.If you haven't tried it-give it a try before you give up on iron sights
 
pbonura said:
I going to pick up a 1.75x4 bushnell banner for my shotgun. Perfect scope for close encounters.
Click to expand...

I would suggest something with a true 1x. The .75x additional on the low end doesn't seem like much but its enough to slow you down and is really no different than running a 2x or 3x on the low end.

TDC
 
TDC said:
scientifically and physiologically speaking you're wrong. Reddot sights or low power conventional scopes are faster than iron sights. The need to align 3 focal planes with irons does not lend itself to rapid work. This problem is eliminated when you remove one focal plane and use a reddot or low power scope.

The variable brightness of a reddot and/or the naturally centering reticle style of the German number 4 with left right and bottom posts also greatly aid the eye in finding the center of the reticle for faster times on target. Incidentally both systems allow for greater accuracy or rather precision placement of shots due to their finer reticle dimensions over irons.

Tdc
Click to expand...

Yes, nothing is faster than using one sighting plane, which is impossible with iron sights at any distance.

Ted
 
Last edited:
I recently learned that not all Red Dots are Parallax free at all distances. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of "one sighting plane" and its advantage?
 
My one and only reservation about the Aimpoint is the long 3X magnfier, extra option for the end eyepiece. That takes up alot of rearward eye relief, especially for high recoiling cartridges. But staying on topic and during hunting in similar forested areas, how can one seriously argue against the excellent results from the European hunting video farmboy posted?

my opinion only.......
 
TDC said:
I would suggest something with a true 1x. The .75x additional on the low end doesn't seem like much but its enough to slow you down and is really no different than running a 2x or 3x on the low end.

TDC
Click to expand...

I have two slug guns. One for bear and sitting in a stand with a scope. If I was pushing I have one with iron sights. But I see your point.
 
I hit the range today with my new sight mark ultra shot holo sight. It worked great, took no time to get it sighted in on my norc m305. Perfect day to try it, 3 degrees out and pouring rain with low vis, much like the environment in the bush that made it hard to pick up the front blade of my rifles battle sights. Shooting 1-1/2 in group at 100 m, 2/12 - 3 in groups out to 200 m. Nice clear reticle and plenty bright enough. Put 60 rounds down range with no issues. Love the ability to shoot with two eyes open. Tried the 3x magnifier as well, worked pretty good though I dont think I will carry it along in the bush.
 
I know many hunters from Alberta use those red dot sight, such as sightmark ultra shot pro, or ultra shot qd, ect.
http://www.brandonoptics.com/Canada-Night-Vision-Optics

TDC said:
scientifically and physiologically speaking you're wrong. Reddot sights or low power conventional scopes are faster than iron sights. The need to align 3 focal planes with irons does not lend itself to rapid work. This problem is eliminated when you remove one focal plane and use a reddot or low power scope.

The variable brightness of a reddot and/or the naturally centering reticle style of the German number 4 with left right and bottom posts also greatly aid the eye in finding the center of the reticle for faster times on target. Incidentally both systems allow for greater accuracy or rather precision placement of shots due to their finer reticle dimensions over irons.

Tdc
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom