Griffo1337 wrote:Hello!
Looking to get my first .22LR (I know that topic has been done to death), but I am looking to a rifle with iron/peep sights.
Alternatively, can you have sights fitted to, say, a Lithgow 101?
I want iron sights as I enjoy shooting with them, I will eventually put a scope on the rifle, but I'd like the option of iron sights.
Apologies in advance if I've used incorrect terminology
And to make it interesting, I am a left-eye dominant, left-handed shooter.
Don_Stevenson wrote:This is a fair question, I'm in the market for my first 22 and was of course bored senseless during lockdowns so did a lot of searching. I found it very hard to find any info on getting a stock 22 that would take both iron sights and a scope unless it came standard with the irons already.
I am keen on the Lithgow but have decided now will just buy it and get a scope and then buy a moderately priced air rifle to shoot with iron sights
Don_Stevenson wrote:I'm getting back into shooting with my wife so the overriding theme at the moment is taking the lowest friction approach to getting set up.
I figured there would be some way to get iron sights on whatever I want but for the same or less money we can just buy an air rifle and she can learn to shoot irons on that.
CAVEMAN wrote:A good starting point that will work and wont break the bank will be the Ruger American Rimfire.
Can be had for around $600 if you shop around. Has standard iron sights that are relatively easy to adjust straight out of the box and effective too. Fit some Weaver #12 bases and then you can mount and dismount a scope easily.
They do not do a lefty model but you will find a way around it. I often find myself running it using my left hand when the front is supported and I'm a righty.
Build quality is good. It will work. The magazines also work and easy to get if you want a spare or two. Would recommend as a no nonsense starter rifle.
viewtopic.php?f=71&t=11167
viewtopic.php?f=71&t=11167
Ruin wrote:I recently got a Ruger American. It has iron sights and mounts for a scope. I have found it a great entry level rifle for target and hunting with the right ammo. And at reasonable price.
in2anity wrote:You want a rifle with a long sight radius, 24” at least; the Lithgow is too short. I can group into 2moa with my 24” No4, but only 3moa with a 18” carbine, from the sling. I’ve proven it with a SCATT trainer. Sight radius counts.
You see the 22lr CZ trainer rifles on the service line often - they have very similar sights to v notch service rifle sights.
bladeracer wrote:
Have you tested this on the same rifle with the same sights?
I wouldn't say you _need_ a longer barrel, but it certainly can help. The geometric advantage to a longer sight radius can be important, but the big improvement for me is that a longer barrel puts the front sight further from my eye, where I can actually bring it into focus. This is why I think it's worth shouldering a rifle and seeing if you can focus on the front sight.
My BSA Sportsman 5 has a 25" barrel, with fine sights and I can shoot very well with it. The sight radius is only 535mm, but the front sight is 830mm from my eye.
Mounting an aperture at the rear of the action gives me an even longer sight radius on my 18.5" Henry than the conventional sights on the 25" rifle, 545mm, but the front sight is only 670mm from my eye and too close to focus. The original Henry sights only have 370mm radius.
The Ruger American Compact 18.5" sight radius is 360mm, and about (adjustable butt stock) 700mm to my eye.
The 20" Norinco JW21 20" gives me the longest sight radius of my 22's I think, 575mm for the Williams aperture (original 400mm), and 700mm to my eye.
For me, I need the front sight to be about 900mm from my eye at least, to be able to get it into sharp enough focus to be usable.
But, the diopter effect on your iris by looking through an aperture has a very significant effect on sharpening up the edges of the front sight, allowing me to focus at around 750mm, with a more cleanly-defined front sight than a longer rifle gives me with conventional sights.
Some of my milsurps have sights even further from my eye, and with huge sight radius, like the M1903A1, and No4Mk1* with their aperture sights and 24" & 25" barrels.
wildcard6 wrote:Something not mentioned here so far is the fact that rifles designed for open sights have a stock designed to allow the eye to be aligned with those sights right down on the barrel. They have a drop-at-heel, or downward slope. When you put a scope on these rifles, you need to be sure to get the lowest mounts possible and a scope without a large objective bell, otherwise the scope will touch the barrel or possibly the rear open sights, which is a huge no-no. If you use high mounts on a rifle with a stock designed for open sights, you'll find that your face/cheek loses firm contact with the stock [cheek-weld] and this is not conducive to accurate shooting. Rifles are a lot like screwdrivers or any other tool and it is rarely possible to buy one screwdriver, or one spanner, or one hammer and have what you need to do all jobs. In this case, I would recommend a lever-action rifle for open sight shooting and a bolt-action of modern design [straight-line stock] for scope shooting. Shooting with open sights limits how well you can shoot, governed primarily by how well you can see. I shot with open sights [Winchester 94-22] up until my 40th birthday, when I went shooting and spotted a rabbit in some shade. I aimed at the rabbit... and couldn't see it. I put the rifle down and there it was, right where I'd seen it, so I aimed again... and no rabbit! The penny dropped and I had my eyes checked and eventually had my cataracts removed, but I still use a scope for all live-target shooting, where precision aiming is required. If you haven't tried rimfire lever-action metallic silhouette yet, I'd suggest you give it a go, because it's lots of fun and perfectly suited to open-sight rimfire shooting.
bladeracer wrote:Cheek weld is important with iron sights, almost crucial, but not so much with optics I find. As long as you correctly set the parallax, it doesn't matter where your head is behind the scope, just put the crosshair on the target, pull the trigger, and your bullet will hit the crosshair. For hunting or plinking though, where you might not want to bother precisely adjusting parallax, a good consistent cheek weld is more useful.
in2anity wrote:bladeracer wrote:Cheek weld is important with iron sights, almost crucial, but not so much with optics I find. As long as you correctly set the parallax, it doesn't matter where your head is behind the scope, just put the crosshair on the target, pull the trigger, and your bullet will hit the crosshair. For hunting or plinking though, where you might not want to bother precisely adjusting parallax, a good consistent cheek weld is more useful.
It depends on how you shoot - If you are shooting unsupported (sling, either SR or TR), the key to maintaining good scores is CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY. Any basic coaching reinforces this point from day 1 - and consistent cheek weld is an extremely crucial component of each and every shot. Smallbore, fullbore, olympic 3p - all require precisely adjusted, and maintained cheek weld. Even if i'm shooting a scoped rifle from the sling (for example CMP AR in the US which now permits 8x scopes), cheek weld is still equally as important as it was when everyone ran irons, because it's all about consistent repetition.
Now moving into the F-class camp - the idea is to make as little contact with the rifle as possible - you are merely the actuator for the trigger. So yes, if this static bipod or double-bagged style of shooting is your jam, then yeah I can see cheek weld being less important. Just depends which camp you identify in.