Looking for my first big game rifle....

Beer Ogre

Beer Ogre

Member
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
North Bay, Bantario
Hey guys,

I tend to avidly research an item prior to purchase and since I'll be looking to buy my first centre fire soon, I've been looking a few over online.

I am very comfortable with my Remington 870 shotgun, so right now I'm strongly leaning toward a Remington 7600 (or possibly a good used 760) because I'm already so used to a pump-action. I'm planning on going with a 30-06 in whatever I do end up getting since the ammo is easy to come by where I'm at and it is good for pretty much everything. If I don't go with the pump, then it will be a bolt action I buy as levers and semis don't interest me at this point.

What I'm mainly wondering about is this: What is the big deal with scopes?

Everything I've read or heard tells me that almost all deer or moose are taken at under 100 yards (often under 50 yards) whereas bear is usually even less than that. So why are there so many scope advocates out there? I see very few newer rifles available with iron sights, most need a scope slapped on it or already come with the glass. Since the majority of hunting shots taken seem to be at relatively close range, I just imagine myself being more comfortable with iron sights. I envision it as having a wider field of view and think I would be able to acquire my target much faster than if I were looking through a scope. Also, if you have your scope set too high (not sure I'm using the right terminology there) all you would see is fur in the crosshairs. How do you know just what part of the animal you're even aiming at when that happens? Are you then stuck fiddling with your scope to dial the range back on it?

All this scope business confuses me. I like things simple, and that's why I'm really leaning toward iron sights, but by doing so I find I'm really limiting my rifle choices since so few come with iron sights as standard nowadays it seems.

Your thoughts on iron sights vs. scopes? Your thoughts on the Remington 7600?
 
If your eyes are young & good factory sites work very well on Rems, in fact they're one of the few rifles the sites do seem to fit.
My opinion is you will always shoot better with a cheap Wialliams reciever site, that's what I would do in your place :)
 
Well, I'm 29, and no glasses yet, BUT at my last visit to the optometrist he did give me a very weak prescription for glasses (.25 in one eye, .5 in the other) and he actually said to me, "Unless you do a lot of highway driving or a lot of shooting, save yourself some money and wait until your eyes get bad enough to really need them".........

Weird he'd mention shooting... haha. Maybe I already looked like a hunter then...
 
If you are comfortable with iron sights by all means stick with them. As mentioned as we age scopes become easier to use (for most of us), as you only have to focus on one thing, the target. I also prefer a scope because even at close range I can pick a specific spot on my quarry to hold on. Always keep your scope on the lowest setting when you hunt and you won't have the "nothing but hair in the crosshairs" problem. There is always time to turn the scope up if you need to, but rarely vice versa.
 
Depends on the sights as well. My dad hunted for 30 years with an aperture sight on his 760, but went to a low powered scope as his eyes tired. I prefer scopes on everything, for light gathering in low light situations.

A good 2-7x scope will give you the best of both, keep it on 2x unless you need to shoot longer ranges.
 
I really dislike the open sights on my Remington 7600. It wears a scope right now. You should look into Williams Fire Sights. They are fibre optic open sights. They are cheap and very effective. But, as has been mentioned, if your eyes are fine and you are positive that you will consistently be shooting at around 75 yards then factory sights will be fine. However, the big deal with scopes is that they greatly improve your odds of making a clean kill shot, especially after 50 yards. A sighted-in scope should be on every hunter's rifle, unless that gun is going to be used as a bush gun. If cost is an issue, try a red-dot scope. I actually prefer the red-dot, as I am also in Ontario and shots are rarely over 100 yards.
 
I think part of the big deal with scopes is many people just unconsciously assume a rifle needs a scope, and never even consider iron sights. Look at how many new rifles don't even come with sights! This is probably due to consumers expecting to scope their rifles now, and is of course a cost savings to the manufacturer. Scopes certainly have their place, esp. long range, like over 300 yds, and in low light. But the OP is right, the majority of shots taken on big game are easily taken with iron sights.
 
It's whatever you are comfortable with as far as sights go.
Worth considering is the fact that, while open sights do well in the range that most game is shot, what happens when you see that animal at 350 yards on the last day of open season and you have only irons on your rifle?
If you are willing to pass on the shot, fine. But if you have a scope on board, the shot is relatively easy to take.
A low powered scope, on the other hand, is no detriment to close in shots.
I have used optics all my life, but prefer Aperture sights and a front firesight on my lever actions. [Max range - 200 meters]
Regards, Eagleye.
 
Well, if you're most comfortable with a pump rifle then I can't really advise against it. My preference is for bolt guns but you don't really get to stretch out very far in northern Ontario, the brush is very thick and shots are short and that's where a pump shines, especially with open sights. You can fire and easily reacquire the target AND cycle the action for a follow-up in an extremely fluid motion without breaking your cheek weld. That's a situation where pumps succeed brilliantly, so I'd say you're on the right track with that train of thought.
 
I wanted a 7600 at one time... I tried out the sights at the store and found I couldn't get low enough to use the iron sights (because of the high stock). Make sure and try one before purchasing. The 760's had lower stocks and I'm guessing they would 'fit' me better for iron sights.
 
The problem with going with irons is that the vast majority of new rifles sold have LOUSY open sights if any. I hunt with open sights a fair bit in the woods and they are no disadvantage except early in the morning and at dusk. They are especially good in wet or snowy weather when a scope can be useless. A good scope(higher end) will allow you extra hunting time when open sights are useless. Most rifles in current production are not even stocked for open sights, another drawback. Personally I prefer aperture sights to traditional barrel mounted irons, they are more accurate, capable of fine adjustment and very fast to acquire a target especially if you use a .125 inch aperture or remove it all together. As well, putting a scope on a traditional brush gun like a 94 Winchester or 336 or 36 Marlin detracts greatly from handling qualities and ease of one hand carry. It's all a trade-off and if you're anything like me, at some point you will find yourself watching a buck wander out of sight 350 yards across a meadow while holding a 94 with open sights. Or struggling to find hair in the scope when a deer seems to come up out of the ground right in front of you.
 
While it is quite possible, especially if your eyes are young as has been pointed out, to do a lot of shooting and hunting very successfully with iron sights, for me there are some good reasons for going with a scope.

A scope is the most accurate sight system a rifle can have. No question about that.

A scope is very helpful at that final identification of the target and beyond, making it the safest sight system. I'm absolutely NOT suggesting using a scope like binoculars, but in dim light the view a scope can provide is a valuable tool. I am convinced of this because once I actually caught a flash of a red in the edge of my scope deep in the bushes behind a buck. I stopped, and could not see anything with my naked eyes, so I tried to line it up again. This time I saw movement that clearly indicated an unknown hunter moving through the bush behind my buck. No shot was possible, but without a scope, I wouldn't have seen him at all.

I have also stopped a shot when the scope revealed that the buck was not as good as I first thought through the binoculars. Seeing is everything in shooting, and no sighting system can make me see any better than a scope.

My last argument for a scope is that a good scope of the proper power is the fastest sighting system you can use. Great light gathering clarity, one visual focus plane, one simple cross on the target makes for very fast use. The myth that iron sights are faster is the result of most hunters using way more magnification than is ideal.
 
While its true that most game in ON is shot under 100 yards, all of it is not. A 200, or 300 yard shot is possible. I'd want a scope for a long shot like that.

Some people also find it much easier to get on target faster with a scope then irons. Some dont.

And then theirs the light gathering capabilities for those first/last minute shots.

As to the calibre, I prefer .308. But whatever, anything will do in that range.
 
rral22 said:
While it is quite possible, especially if your eyes are young as has been pointed out, to do a lot of shooting and hunting very successfully with iron sights, for me there are some good reasons for going with a scope.

A scope is the most accurate sight system a rifle can have. No question about that.

A scope is very helpful at that final identification of the target and beyond, making it the safest sight system. I'm absolutely NOT suggesting using a scope like binoculars, but in dim light the view a scope can provide is a valuable tool. I am convinced of this because once I actually caught a flash of a red in the edge of my scope deep in the bushes behind a buck. I stopped, and could not see anything with my naked eyes, so I tried to line it up again. This time I saw movement that clearly indicated an unknown hunter moving through the bush behind my buck. No shot was possible, but without a scope, I wouldn't have seen him at all.

I have also stopped a shot when the scope revealed that the buck was not as good as I first thought through the binoculars. Seeing is everything in shooting, and no sighting system can make me see any better than a scope.

My last argument for a scope is that a good scope of the proper power is the fastest sighting system you can use. Great light gathering clarity, one visual focus plane, one simple cross on the target makes for very fast use. The myth that iron sights are faster is the result of most hunters using way more magnification than is ideal.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your points except for the scope being the fastest sight system. It is not. For close range shooting, especially dangerous game, iron sights are best and fastest. You will never see a professional hunter in Africa using a scoped rifle as a backup gun, EVER!! Very bad form to get your clients chewed, mangled or eaten.
 
Beer Ogre said:
Hey guys,

I tend to avidly research an item prior to purchase and since I'll be looking to buy my first centre fire soon, I've been looking a few over online.

I am very comfortable with my Remington 870 shotgun, so right now I'm strongly leaning toward a Remington 7600 (or possibly a good used 760) because I'm already so used to a pump-action. I'm planning on going with a 30-06 in whatever I do end up getting since the ammo is easy to come by where I'm at and it is good for pretty much everything. If I don't go with the pump, then it will be a bolt action I buy as levers and semis don't interest me at this point.

What I'm mainly wondering about is this: What is the big deal with scopes?

Everything I've read or heard tells me that almost all deer or moose are taken at under 100 yards (often under 50 yards) whereas bear is usually even less than that. So why are there so many scope advocates out there? I see very few newer rifles available with iron sights, most need a scope slapped on it or already come with the glass. Since the majority of hunting shots taken seem to be at relatively close range, I just imagine myself being more comfortable with iron sights. I envision it as having a wider field of view and think I would be able to acquire my target much faster than if I were looking through a scope. Also, if you have your scope set too high (not sure I'm using the right terminology there) all you would see is fur in the crosshairs. How do you know just what part of the animal you're even aiming at when that happens? Are you then stuck fiddling with your scope to dial the range back on it?

All this scope business confuses me. I like things simple, and that's why I'm really leaning toward iron sights, but by doing so I find I'm really limiting my rifle choices since so few come with iron sights as standard nowadays it seems.

Your thoughts on iron sights vs. scopes? Your thoughts on the Remington 7600?
Click to expand...

It depends where you're at. Northern ON and many places out east you're right. Game is taken at close ranges almost always. Not so in Alberta, my Mule deer was shot at 430 yards last year.

Also, there are many scopes where you are able to dial the magnification down quite low making them fully functional for close range. You also don't have to aling a front and rear sight. It's simpley point and shoot.
 
Mike Webb said:
I agree with most of your points except for the scope being the fastest sight system. It is not. For close range shooting, especially dangerous game, iron sights are best and fastest. You will never see a professional hunter in Africa using a scoped rifle as a backup gun, EVER!! Very bad form to get your clients chewed, mangled or eaten.
Click to expand...

Well, long ago I stopped worrying about stories of what people think goes on in Africa, and decided to do what was best for the hunting I actually did in my real life.

For all my hunting, a good scope that is capable of proper (read that "low") magnification is the most rapid sighting system I have found in over 45 years of big game hunting in Canada.

African guides use iron sights because that sort of shooting is done at ranges that require as much "pointing" as "aiming", and for such shooting, I will agree that a scope may not be the best, but we don't know for sure because tradition and habit are hard to break. However, for everything realistically to be expected in North American hunting, the fastest and most accurate shots will be made with a low powered scope.

I think advising a person looking for his "first big game rifle" to copy the logic of less than (and this is one of the 76% internet statistics that are made up by the poster) let's say 0.01% of hunters that the African prof. hunt represent, is just silly.

I stand by my advice to the OP. Get a good variable scope of say, 1.5X on the low end, and you will have the fastest, most accurate sighting system for N.A. real life hunting.
 
I still use my old 1950's vintage 760 in .270. It's a great rifle. I've shot about 20 moose with it, a few deer and the odd black bear. I couldn't count the animals my dad took with it.

I have a fixed 4X scope on it and have shot game within 250 yards with ease. I like a scope over iron sights for a general use rifle because they gather more light. During some seasons you have to count tines on an animal and with a little magnification and added light gathering a scope makes a fast decision easier. You don't always have time to use binoculars.

I recently switched to a 7mm rem mag because, due to pine beetle clear cuts, the shots I have to take are generally 150 - 350 yards now instead of 50 - 250 and I like the flatter trajectory of the 7mm.

As far as the 760 goes, it's light and quick to the shoulder. A good first choice IMHO.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom