to 200 yards.
So everyone should immediately abandon the glass sight and go iron? Not in a millennium! The premier sight of all times is the scope. My PH rifle for Africa, a Marlin .45-70 with big bullets going faster than the old warhorse’s originators imagined in their wildest dreams, wears a Leupold 1.75-6X scope. My Marlin XLR .35 Remington is dressed with the same glass sight. My Morrison .30-06 is graced with the super high-tech Swarovski X6i 2X-12X with lighted reticule. I go iron for only four reasons, but they are good ones. First is the challenge. I have to get a little closer to that buck, bull, or boar with irons. (It’s called stalking.) Second is success. In those wonderful whitetail haunts where the shot normally comes no farther than three first downs to boot toe, the simpler iron sight works just fine. Third is appropriateness. My lever-action carbines wear iron sights that promote fast-handling at brush and timber ranges. Fourth is maintaining the simple lines of simple rifles, especially those “cowboy” lever actions.
The famous Springfield Model of 1903 went to war with essentially a Patridge type sight system: square post with U-notch, ideal for six o’clock hold with flat blade level at top of notch. The M-1 Garand (pronounced Gare´-end, not Gah-rand´, by the way) had an aperture sight adjustable to 1,200 yards. Most gunners today still learn with iron sights. The modern shooter is smart to add iron sight savvy to his or her body of knowledge because, geriatric as they may be, irons are here to stay. They are effective, light in weight, rugged, reliable, and they retain the sleek lines of rifles when that is important cosmetically or for rattlesnake speed in tight spots.
The Ghost Ring front sight is usually, but not always, coupled with a White Stripe front sight from the same manufacturer.
This Ghost Ring rear sight is provided with a large aperture to give the “ghost image” picture of sharp front sight on target with “ghostly” image in the aperture.
The dovetail slot into which a rear sight would be placed. The dovetail slot allows the drifting of a rear sight from right to left for changing bullet impact on the target from right to left.
Buy a new rifle today and you may very well find it outfitted with iron sights. All my short- to medium-range rifles are iron-sighted. But not those long-range rascals. They wear scope sights. You bet.
IRON RIFLE SIGHTS OVER TIME
In the late 19th century, as an 1895 catalog reveals, all Winchester Models 1873, 1875, 1886, plus .22s and the Winchester Single Shot, came with open iron sights. Likewise Marlin’s Model 1891 and 1893. In the 1920s, open irons continued to rule. Same in the ‘30s. By 1940, the Model 70 Winchester could be purchased with Lyman 48WJS and 57W micrometer receiver sights, the Model 71 with optional 98A peep. The Model 94 continued with open irons.
The standard Savage 99 wore open iron sights in this time frame, while the 99K had a tang peep, the 99-RS a Lyman aperture sight. Marlin’s 36, forerunner of today’s 336, came with open irons in the ‘40s. Today, Marlin lever-actions continue with factory open iron sights, as does the Browning’s Lightning, while Remington, Winchester, Savage, and Ruger offer both open and aperture sights, factory-wise. And sometimes scope-ready, too, with no sights at all.
MILITARY RIFLE ACCURACY: A COMPARISON
BY JOHN T. BUTTERS
This article chronicles the results of an enjoyable project that grew out of a series of more or less unrelated events starting in the year 2000 with the acquisition of a very nice SMLE No. 4 MK2 rifle. I had always wanted to find out for myself what my father, who served in the British Army in WWI, found so praiseworthy about the SMLE.
Admittedly, he was issued the No. 1 rifle in one or another of its earlier versions but the No. 4 model was more appealing to me due to its better trigger arrangement and heavier barrel. I immediately discovered that his observation that it was “the same size from muzzle to butt plate” was indeed close to being literally correct. Thankfully, I did not have to check on the truth of his comments regarding its handiness as a club carrying an oversized butcher knife on the other end. He believed that “cold steel is the answer” and “the rifle is designed for disciplined and commanded musketry and is best employed under strict unit control.”
On the other hand, I was trained by American GIs with European and Asian theater combat experience who emphasized individual marksmanship at reasonable ranges within the constraints of “fire discipline.” Fighting with sharpened entrenching tools, rifle butts and bayonets was recognized as a part of the job to be avoided if at all possible. As one bestriped and beribboned old master Sergeant told us, “if you can stop ‘em when they are 300 yards away that’s 10 times better than 30 yards away. That doesn’t mean you need to mess with ‘em at a thousand yards unless you’re told to. One of the SOBs may have a mortar.” Dad and I never reconciled our philosophical differences over the question of individual marksmanship versus unit musketry exercises.
I once saw the movie Enemy at the Gates, in which the Russian protagonist used a Moisin-Nagant long rifle. As a kid I had been exposed to the comments of a gunsmith who bad-mouthed the Moisin-Nagant in the belief that it was “weak and dangerous.” In the ‘50s and ‘60s the Communist Nations of the Eastern European Block used the Moisin-Nagant long rifle in the international military rifle competitions when it was their turn to host the matches. Russian, Romanian, East German and Bulgarian shooters and others shot some remarkable scores against our best marksmen in those so called “CISM” (Commite Internationale Sport Militaire) matches.
Rear sight comparison. Left to right: M96 Carl Gustav Swedish Mauser, M31 Schmidt-Rubin, M39 Finnish Moisin-Nagant, 1903 A3 Springfield.
Guns were supposedly chosen by lot to ensure an even footing and ammunition was said to be a “common issue.” All was purportedly equal although suspicious minds darkly hinted that some guns and ammo were “more equal than others,” especially when shot by the host countries! Even so, I wanted to see for myself how a really good Moisin-Nagant would shoot. When the Finnish M39 Moisin-Nagant in 7.62x54R became available with a new 1942 rebuild by the Finnish “B” factory (Valmet?) I ordered one.
Others followed in quick succession: the Swiss K31 in 7.5 x 55 Schmidt-Rubin, the Swedish M96 Mauser in 6.5x55, the Yugoslav M48A in 8x57, the M1909 and 1891 Mausers in 7.65x53 Argentine, and the Arisaka M38 in 6.5x50 Japanese came my way. I already had a DCM 1903A3 by Smith Corona that was a proven performer so I was all set to make a military bolt rifle performance comparison that spanned the late 19th through the mid 20th centuries.
For the shooting phase of the project, I chose to shoot from prone with issue sights, a coat, a glove and a tight sling, as I felt that off-the-shoulder performance would be more uniform than off the bench and more in keeping with field usage. Except for chronograph sessions, all shooting was “personalized” match-type using U.S. military and US NRA targets at ranges out to 880 yards.
Observation and opinions of individual characteristics were noted and compared within the group. Ammunition included both handloads and “issue grade” where available. All rifles were inspected for structural soundness of the action and bolt and correct function of the firing mechanism and all were checked for proper headspace. After all, some of these “old soldiers”
