Why are so many current models of bolt action rifles offered without sights?

[NyleRN]

My post was:

"That's not always true, though, and co-witness is also possible."

I know what you said. You're not answering the question. How do you get an optic low enough on a bolt action to co-witness with the irons when they aren't tall enough to be on the same plane as the reticle?
I never said anything in my post about co-witnessing. You brought it up and said it's possible. I'd like to know cause I genuinely don't know how it'd be done

 

[Sigblaster]

Wanted the same set up. Got lucky and found a tikka t3x arctic at a gun show. Comes with irons

Wow, nice. Researching now.

 

[xwing]

I'm just saying, how hard would it be to offer this as a factory option? Not on every rifle, but as a custom option?

It's based on supply and demand. A company will only offer a factory option if they think they will sell enough of that option to be worth their time (R&D, tooling, marketing, etc...) If a particular feature only has a small following, companies discontinue it on new models. You might have better luck looking at older firearms. (FYI, I have the same problem with cars. Virtually no-one makes what I want anymore.)

 

[Mgderf]

It's market driven, but I'm sure the practice is not set in stone.
Several years ago, no-one offered the new (at the time) .327 Federal magnum cartridge in a rifle platform.
The .327 round is sort of a niche round to start with, so talk about a limited market...

Well, I, among more than just a few others, began calling, writing, and emailing, every lever action manufacturer because that was what we wanted.
It took a few years, and I had all but given up, but after my hundred emails to Henry, (not that many I'm sure, but felt like it), all of a sudden they released my .327 fed mag lever gun!

I jumped on it, nabbing a serial number under 000120

My point is, if you want it bad enough, start a conversation with the sales folks at Winchester, Remington, Savage, Tikka, CZ, Kimber...

I would suggest Henry. But you said bolt...

 

[Sigblaster]

I know what you said. You're not answering the question. How do you get an optic low enough on a bolt action to co-witness with the irons when they aren't tall enough to be on the same plane as the reticle?
I never said anything in my post about co-witnessing. You brought it up and said it's possible. I'd like to know cause I genuinely don't know how it'd be done

You said "If you have irons on a bolt action then you'll need to mount the scope higher which generally is against common practice."

I said "That's not always true, though, and co-witness is also possible."

Then I gave you an example of a scope not being required to be mounted high enough to clear the sights. Maybe I didn't make it clear what my post was replying to.

 

[Sigblaster]

It's based on supply and demand. A company will only offer a factory option if they think they will sell enough of that option to be worth their time (R&D, tooling, marketing, etc...) If a particular feature only has a small following, companies discontinue it on new models. You might have better luck looking at older firearms. (FYI, I have the same problem with cars. Virtually no-one makes what I want anymore.)

There's enough aftermarket sights out there that they could offer options pretty cheap if they had the craftsman to stick them on. That's part of the problem. I don't know of any gunsmith that I would trust well enough to stick them on without it turning into a fiasco.

And Oof, don't get me started on cars... If I had kept it and just parked it in my Mom's garage...

 

[Sigblaster]

It's market driven, but I'm sure the practice is not set in stone.
Several years ago, no-one offered the new (at the time) .327 Federal magnum cartridge in a rifle platform.
The .327 round is sort of a niche round to start with, so talk about a limited market...

Well, I, among more than just a few others, began calling, writing, and emailing, every lever action manufacturer because that was what we wanted.
It took a few years, and I had all but given up, but after my hundred emails to Henry, (not that many I'm sure, but felt like it), all of a sudden they released my .327 fed mag lever gun!

I jumped on it, nabbing a serial number under 000120

My point is, if you want it bad enough, start a conversation with the sales folks at Winchester, Remington, Savage, Tikka, CZ, Kimber...

I would suggest Henry. But you said bolt...

Nice that it worked out for you.

Don't count out Henry. In a hundred years, they'll start building ARs.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Also economies of scale. Not making them means they can save a few bucks in milling time and parts. 15 minutes on the mill and $5 in parts doesnt sound like much. Until you multiply that by tens of thousands of rifles per year.
So if they make 20,000 rifles a year thats 5,000 hours of mill time and $100,000 per year in parts. At the median rate that is $130k per year in labor.

So by dropping that off, they're saving $230k per year by not adding those sights that are most likely not going to be used anyway.

 

[Hookeye]

I think most bolt guys wanting optic and irons will use QD rings.

NECG has some Euro stuff

EAW "Quick-Loc" Pivot Mount | New England Custom Gun Service, Ltd. - Page 1

www.newenglandcustomgun.com

May try Warnes on my Ruger #1A.

 

[NyleRN]

You said "If you have irons on a bolt action then you'll need to mount the scope higher which generally is against common practice."

I said "That's not always true, though, and co-witness is also possible."

Then I gave you an example of a scope not being required to be mounted high enough to clear the sights. Maybe I didn't make it clear what my post was replying to.

Ok. I guess we're done. I'm not following as to why you'd make a statement unrelated to mine, "co-witness is also possible" and when I question you on how you do that, you can't provide an answer. You continue to divert to the first part of your statement when I'm clearly not arguing that part.

 

[two70]

I'm just saying, how hard would it be to offer this as a factory option? Not on every rifle, but as a custom option?

It wouldn't be hard at all to make them but it would be extremely difficult to sell them once made. Cheap rifles and high end, long range rifles sell, neither of which have much demand for irons. Sights are an easy sacrifice on the way to producing the cheapest rifles possible. With the current quality and availability of optics there really isn't much demand for irons on any small bore rifles. Big bores are a different story, of course. However, the demand for big bores is itself really low.

 

[mmpsteve]

I understand that I'm probably not in the majority on this, but I prefer that my rifles have sights on them, even though I will be using optics on them. Are there really so few of people like me who like to have the option of sights?

I'm shopping around for a new bolt-action in .308, and I really want sights on it. There are few offerings I can find that even come close, but they're not close enough.

I like to challenge myself at the range with open sights sometimes, even though my rifles have optics on them.

Would it really be so hard to offer this as a factory option?

Being a CZ fan, I found this. I don't have any of these newer models, but my older models have performed admirably:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1049870560

Scroll thru the pics - looks pretty nice.

.

 

[Hookeye]

The Steyr CL II SX Mountain can be had in .308 win, has iron sights.
Also has the butterknife bolt (which I like the looks of).
Unfortunately it appears to be a Euro only rifle, the US version (Prohunter 3) is round bolt knob and no sights.

I suppose somebody could get one over here.
Then add a good QD style ring system for a nice scope.....

Proly pushing total of 5K.

And it won't kill deer more dead than way cheaper options.

 

[Hookeye]

I think the Steyr CL II SX actually better looking than the CZ

CZ 600 Lux - CZ-USA

The Lux lives up to expectations, with refined lines and traditional style of the Lux reflect a long, proud tradition of gun makers and hunters.

cz-usa.com

 

[Hookeye]

NECG offers sights for gunsmith installation, even express sights.
No, they aint the same as the Remington 700 ADL/BDL $40 set LOL

 

[snapping turtle]

I get the "I want a brand new rifle" which is why I always look for the unicorn used one. The one that was bought by the rich guy to go deer hunting camp one year. He bought it had the shop install a scope sighted it in with four or five rounds. Took it out of the trunk and into deer camp. Never shot it again gun. Sat in a gun case in the closet next to the expensive fly fishing stuff he also never used.

Been going to gun show since I was 11 or so. Now 60 and have put away several of the unicorns over the years.

I like the older shiney mint stuff. They are harder to come by now that private land is rifle legal. Pre rifle round deer you could find them in local shops pretty easy in Indiana cause the demand was not high.

Now try to find the unicorn in 257 Robert's or 35 wheelen ect. Much harder as not as many got made.

I think I can check off 222 rem 243 308 30-06 and 7 mm rem in bolt. 35 rem 308 25-20 444 Marlin and 45-79 in lever action. The 25-20 being not mint forearm as it has four screw holes in it. The rest is pure minty.

The cost is a major factor. Just remember the that new machines make good rifles and old craftsmanship makes good rifles. I think the late 1970 early 1980's you still had a good selection of both. Since 1989 factories relied on the machines more and more. No hand polish and fitting because they were all machined to a much higher standard. Much like scope mount lapping we used to do on about all scope mounts. I don't think I have had any reason to lap a scope mount in years in quality scope mounts. In the 1970's they all could have used a nice little touch up.

Good luck with the search as that is the fun part if you ask me. I think nearly all my bolts have iron sights.

 

[BigMoose]

If you want good old fashioned hunting rifles. Simpson Limited brought in the motherload from somewhere in Europe.. most of them having not just irons, but irons that are designed to be primary.


https://simpsonltd.com/husqvarna-1640-z65937/ $525 in 30-06

https://simpsonltd.com/husqvarna-640-z60457/ $585 in 9.3X62MM


https://simpsonltd.com/husqvarna-640-z60463/ $525 in 8mm


https://simpsonltd.com/husqvarna-1640-z65982/ $825.00 in 6.5X55 MM with scope

Long Guns - Husqvarna - Simpson Ltd

simpsonltd.com

Why not smoke some dead critter dinner with a classic made by a Chainsaw company.
Some of them are indeed in 308. And you can just tell the wife, I bought a Husqvarna. To which she will think "He just bought a chainsaw, ok"

 

[Knights1776]

I understand that I'm probably not in the majority on this, but I prefer that my rifles have sights on them, even though I will be using optics on them. Are there really so few of people like me who like to have the option of sights?

I'm shopping around for a new bolt-action in .308, and I really want sights on it. There are few offerings I can find that even come close, but they're not close enough.

I like to challenge myself at the range with open sights sometimes, even though my rifles have optics on them.

Would it really be so hard to offer this as a factory option?

I'm on the same boat. I like the idea of having backup sights if my optic is trashed. I don't have extra scopes lying around so it may be weeks before that rifle is useable again if it doesn't have iron sights.

 

[Creedmoor]

What I have learned in the last 20+ years from the USMC is, by and large that very good optics fail very seldom. Learning to shoot with and carrying back up irons is a thing of the past. My thing 2 went through basic in 2019, no irons on any of the service rifles at Parris Island.

 

[Hookeye]

Pic rail.
Scope gets bonked remove and replace w reflex/RDS.