First .22LR, wanting iron sights/peep sights

[Griffo1337]

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.

[yoshie]

CZ has a range of 22LR rifles with iron sights.
Alternatively Skinner sights has a range of sights that could be made to fit to a Lithgow, it would require milling a dovetail or drilling and taping the barrel to fit a front sight.

[Shootermick]

I’ve bought a couple of sets of Skinners, I really like them. They’re really good to deal with and the freight is quick from the States too.
But as was mentioned above, to fit them to a new Lithgow would require a gunsmith.

[bladeracer]

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.

If you want to use a left-handed bolt-action your options are going to be severely limited. Iron sights can be fitted to most rifles but some are significantly more difficult, the RPR for example has a full-length rail so will take AR-15 adjustable sights very easily. Others can have aftermarket sights screwed, dovetailed, clamped, pressed on, or soldered on, but will likely require some finessing to suit the specific rifle.

If it's primarily for shooting off a rest, some lefties prefer the right-handed bolt as you don't move your firing hand to operate it. Other designs, like pump and lever are virtually ambidextrous, loading and ejection are often still set up for right-hand use. There are also straight-pull and lever-release rifled, though mainly right-handed.

Not many rifles come with iron sights nowadays, and conversely not many older rifles came with scope mounting in mind. In between, say the seventies to the nineties it was common for rifles to have irons and have dovetails or tapped holes for mounting scopes.

Ruger offer some models with sights that are quite good, and are set up with picatinny rails for optics. CZ has some rifles with irons, but tend to have dovetails for mounting optics. The Lithgow LA101 is left-handed but I don't know if they offer sights, I can't recall ever seeing them.

I wouldn't rule out older rifles either. My 1951 Sportsman 5 is a great shooter, with sights that suit me very well, but it offers no mounting for optics unless you're willing to drill and tap the action. The Brno Model 2 is a beautiful little rifle that shoots very well, and often has a dovetail. The Brno's are now made by CZ, so parts are generally still available. Even older rifles, like the Lithgow Model 12 and Remington Model 5-series rifles are still great shooters, but you may not want to drill and tap one of those for optics. Even my rifles that I only shoot with iron sights I still like to be able to mount a scope for ammunition testing. A lot of the Western style rifles, like Henry and Marlin often have Western style sights, like buckhorns, or barley corns that you may find you don't like, so it's worth trying to actually shoulder and sight down a rifle to see if it suits you. I particularly like the Ruger bead and U-notch for hunting, and a finer blade and aperture for shooting targets.

The Norinco JW25A (Chinese copy of a WW2 Brno-built version of a German training rifle) I bought recently has a pretend military rear sight that has no adjustment at all. It's sufficient for hunting and plinking but you would need to file their heights and widths to precisely zero it at a specific distance. The other Norincos tend to have very good sights though, like the JW15 (a copy of the Brno Model 2), or JW21 (copy of the Winchester 9422 lever-action) that often shoot very well.

A lot of your choice will come down to purpose, and which manufacturers offer left-handed models, sights can be sorted later.

[Don_Stevenson]

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

[Bugman]

The only rifles I had with iron sights were Henrys' plus one Ruger 10/22. They were fitted with Skinner sights and worked a treat, for me anyway. Me thinks that the Lithgow would be better served wit a good scope.

[bladeracer]

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

Yes, I doubt many manufacturers would go to the effort of setting up a rifle for irons if they're not going to include them on the rifle. But aftermarket sights are available that are not very difficult to install. A front ramp is probably the simplest way to install a front sight. It can be fitted with a simple screw down into the barrel, or bored to an interference fit and sleeved over the muzzle, or clamped around the muzzle with screws, or you can have a dovetail milled directly into the barrel for a sight blade to slide into. The last is the most complicated and permanent. Rear sights are generally much easier to mount on the action using the scope mounting points but I have made mounts that attach at remote points to provide a surface to put a sight on without any permanent modification to the rifle.

[CAVEMAN]

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

[Don_Stevenson]

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.

[bladeracer]

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.

This is true, and not a terrible idea, but spring or gas strut rifles have a special technique of shooting due to the way they recoil, almost like an open-bolt machinegun. They can be frustrating to learn to shoot well compared to a .22. As they require the same licencing I would lean toward getting another .22LR instead. A JW15 for example is probably around $300, cheaper than most entry-level air-rifles. CO2 rifles (like the Umarex Ruger 10-22) are fun, but not powerful, and are quite expensive to run. PCP rifles are more useful but are expensive. Air-rifles do have the advantage at the moment in that you can still get pellets, .22LR ammo can be difficult to find.

[bladeracer]

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

I second this as a great choice, and Williams and Skinner do different aperture sights that fit straight on them.

[Oldbloke]

Brno M2 were STD fitted with open sights and also have a dove tail. It's an option.

[Ruin]

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.

[Oldbloke]

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.

Had a look at 1 last year. Look good. Heard lots of good stuff about them

[in2anity]

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]

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.

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 M1903A3, and No4Mk1* with their aperture sights and 24" & 25" barrels.

[Wm.Traynor]

Griffo,
If you enjoyed iron sights then get something similar. If you enjoyed it then you must have done well and that must mean that your eyesight is pretty good. Presumably then, you must be able to focus the fore sight a very handy talent.
A peep will increase the depth of focus, especially if it is close to the eye: the width of one finger for a rimfire. In that case an aperture of 1mm is a good starting point but all that could be a long way in your future.
Good luck mate

[in2anity]

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.

Spot on mate - it’s all about that crisp front sight picture. That and also it’s relationship with the target. A SMLE or No4 front sight sits very handsomely just under the bottom flat edge of the figure targets. They also sit quite nicely just under the bottom edge of the round fullbore target - rather appropriately sized width-wise. The square corners are invaluable when holding off for wind - if you are shooting “as issued” categories.

Meanwhile my Mauser carbine indeed has similar sights to a Central+square front blade (I built it that way), but the front sight appears larger and tends to overwhelm aforementioned targets. It’s also more fatiguing to continuously try and focus on that closer front sight - and that eye fatigue works against you during a match. You can look away at green grass to freshen the eyes, but obviously only if you have the time…

Palma shooters tend to opt for a 30” for these same reasons - switching to a 30” after being used to a 25” feels quite luxurious, and helps with the eye fatigue. It’s all the little things.

These CZs are the ones I have witnessed being shot very well during a service match:

https://www.winchesteraustralia.com.au/ ... 722TRAINER

Get good with that, and you will shoot irons well.

[wildcard6]

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]

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.

I have several rifles that require high scope mounting, offering no cheek contact at all. So, yes, if you want to shoot the rifle with iron sights you want a stock that holds your eye at the correct height, but when you then scope the rifle, the lack of cheek weld probably won't matter at all. The greater magnification will improve your shot placement significantly more than the lack of support will degrade it. A very high magnification scope though, say 30-power or more, has a very, very narrow exit pupil, which can be impossible to hold your eye behind, and a cheek support is absolutely essential to be able to even see through the scope. My 10-40x50 has an exit pupil (the actual diameter of the shaft of light passing through the lenses) of just 1.25mm diameter, my 10-40x56 is slightly better at 1.4mm. My usual scopes are 4.5-18x40 though, with the exit pupil from a very generous 9mm down to 2.2mm at full zoom. My 75-power spotting scope has a 0.9mm exit pupil, and cheek weld, which makes it very difficult to keep my eye positioned behind it, much better to mount my phone on it and view it digitally.

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.

[in2anity]

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.

[bladeracer]

I would agree for any kind of competition shooting, if you value your scores over the enjoyment of simply shooting for the shooting. I hate that our government is trying to push us into a society that restricts firearms purely to shooting competition, at approved ranges only, and trying to do away entirely with allowing us to simply shoot for pleasure. When I was shooting IPSC I couldn't tell you where I placed at the end of each day, it was of absolutely no interest to me.

Just picked up my latest .303, which is set up for competition, I'll post some pics in a separate thread shortly. Would be nice to know if anybody recognizes it.

I also made a new front sight post for the Henry this morning so I can at least zero it.

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.

[Communism_Is_Cancer]

Those henry 22 pump actions are heaps of fun. Great for kids to plink around with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaAlUlQ77dA