Scope,Red dot or open sights

[JodyPenny]

What do you shoot for target and hunting? I have tried each and like open the best but tend to shoot a litter better with scope. Just don’t like the extra weight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hc18flyer]

I hunt with my .45 Colt Blackhawk. I chose a Burris FF3 for my 60+ year old eyes. I like the combo. I didn't think I would like the bulk of a scope? My mount doesn't interfere with the irons, so I can switch easily.

[dannyd]

I tried a red dot last month for the first time; like it way better than a scope.

[GhostHawk]

For true accuracy at 100 yards and farther it is hard to beat even a decent cheap scope.

A few years back I had a pair of Handi rifles in .44mag I was working up. I set one up with a 60$ Red Dot, and the other with a similarly priced 1.5x5 scope.
Out to 75 yards they were neck and neck. But at 100 the scope cranked up to 5x totally smoked the Red Dot.
Since then I have learned a few tricks that would perhaps narrow that gap.

For pure hunting I would take the Red Dot. Faster on target, easy to acquire, good enough in low light. and lighter to carry, less likely to catch and snag on things.

For pure target if I was trying to get groups as small as possible, scope.

Old eyes don't do iron sights well. I used to be ok with irons out to 50 yards but I suspect now it is more like 25 or 30.

[Bazoo]

I like irons better, shoot scopes better. I shoot mostly irons. I’d rather shoot 4” with irons than 2” with scope. But I’m not into guns because I’m chasing tiny groups. If a gun don’t look right with a scope, it loses all its appeal to me. Aesthetics is an import part of my appreciation for firearms.

[Iron369]

I have generally 3-9x 50 scopes on my hunting rifles. There’s not much wide open hunting around here so a 9x magnification is plenty imho. I have mostly 1-6 lpvo on my target rifles because 600y is pretty much the maximum of my skill and hd rifles have red dots.

[trails4u]

I use all of them....just in different applications. If it's old (and I mean like 1800s old), it's iron sights, obviously. If it's kinda old (pre 1960s), pretty much iron sights. If it's a modern hunting rifle that I use specifically to harvest meat, then it's scoped. If it's a home defense weapon, then it carries a red dot/holo, unless it's a classic pistol....then iron sights. Guess I want all the way around and back there, huh?

[Texas by God]

I dont like the bulk of a scope on a handgun but they help accuracy. I like irons but the Burris FF3 is growing on me fast. I will put it back on my hunting revolver when I finish playing with it on carbines.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

[racepres]

All of my Revolvers wear Nothing...Iron...
(almost) All of my Rifles.. Scoped... My Contender???.... Scoped!! Except the 22RF... It is amazing with iron sights..

[memtb]

Getting older and the eyes are working well with irons. I didn’t want a scope because of the additional weight and bulk on an already large, heavy handgun. I went with a Burris Fastfire 3 moa. From a bench rest @ 100 yards, I can keep 4 shot groups around 3 to 3 1/2” from my S&W 460 XVR....I had a best of just under 2 3/4”. I only use 4 shot groups as I have one cylinder hole that always throws a shot wide! I really need to get this cylinder to Doug! memtb

[kingrj]

For a hunting handgun where ranges 75 meters or less it is very hard to beat a red-dot sight...That is what I use for deer..

[sharps4590]

A revolver is at its best with open sights. I turned 69 a week ago tomorrow and the day before shot a 1 1/2 in. group at 25 yards with my Ruger Buckeye, 32-20. Doubled that at 50 yards. It shouldn't need said that was from a rest. I don't hunt with a revolver beyond those distances....though that same day I was banging my 100 yard steel buffalo target, approximately 18 in. X 24 in., offhand with a Colt Army Special in 32-20.

Admittedly I was having a good day but, a deer within 50 yards is dead with any of my revolvers.

[NSB]

I’ve been using red dots for over thirty years. Even back when I was shooting silhouettes I used them for hunting simply because they had very distinct advantages over irons. In dusk and dawn situations they have it all over irons. I can shoot irons as good as anyone. I’ve shot many 60x60 silhouette scores and was an International Class shooter in every class, both rimfire and centerfire. It just makes sense to take advantage of what a good red dot will allow you to do. I’ve put a Burris FF3 on a lever gun, an 1886 45-70, and I can shoot groups consistently under two inches at a measured 114 yards (my deck to backstop). I’m talking about five shot groups. That’s as good as a scope. I’ve shot a little over eighty deer with a handgun, over fifty with the .357mag in a revolver, and almost all of them were shot using a red dot on the gun. Scopes are great off the bench looking for best groups, but have way too many disadvantages once you have to shoot off-hand without a rest. Good eyes or bad, a red dot will help.

[Larry Gibson]

I have really come to prefer the Burris FF on my Ruger Bisley 41 magnum for hunting. Excellent accuracy was maintained as my eyes went south on me to the point the irons were no longer feasible. Given the 7 1/2" barrel I carry it in a slightly modified Michael's vertical shoulder holster. It is comfortable and "out of the way" even when carrying a backpack. Since having cataract surgery with new lens in my eyes i can use irons again but leave the FF on the Bisley because I like and prefer it.

I also have a FF on my M1911 and am really starting to like it. I don't carry it for PD much because I mainly use a suppressor on it. I have also modified a Michael's shoulder holster for carry with the suppressor.

[contender1]

As you can see there will be as many opinions as there are shooters.
Only YOU can decide which type will work best for YOUR applications.
As noted,, older eyes,, they like red dots.
Faster target acquisition, red dots.
More precision,, scopes.
Longer distances,, scopes.
Classic or older guns, irons.
Lighter weight, irons.
Less things to break or screw up, irons.

As you can see,, these are but a few of the considerations YOU have to make.

I handgun hunt, I shoot USPSA competition, and I collect. ALL options have their place in my meager bunch of guns.

[racepres]

As you can see there will be as many opinions as there are shooters.
Only YOU can decide which type will work best for YOUR applications.
As noted,, older eyes,, they like red dots.
Faster target acquisition, red dots.
More precision,, scopes.
Longer distances,, scopes.
Classic or older guns, irons.
Lighter weight, irons.
Less things to break or screw up, irons.

As you can see,, these are but a few of the considerations YOU have to make.

I handgun hunt, I shoot USPSA competition, and I collect. ALL options have their place in my meager bunch of guns.

"Like Button"

[dverna]

I can still shoot iron sighted handguns well at close range and prefer iron sights for PD and most of the plinking we do. But red dot sights are getting a lot more use. Just added two more red dots for the last two guns we got.

I were to hunt with a handgun, I would use a dot sight.

[boatswainsmate]

I prefer a scope on my hunting firearm and iron sights for plinking. I like to have the best advantage possible for proper shot placement when harvesting an animal.

[stubshaft]

I'll stick to irons! I do not like the added weight and change in balance that either a scope or dot provides. I was an International class shooter for many years and have won many State Championships with irons. I will readily admit that scopes do increase the accuracy potential of a handgun and/or rifle, and readily use them off of the bench. But while hunting, iron sights is what I use. I have even mounted some peep sights on my Ruger handguns and really like them. Being an old bowhunter, I like to get close to my quarry, rather than plink at them from longer ranges and iron sights fill the bill for me.

[megasupermagnum]

Everyone is going to have different opinions based on how they shoot. If you have never shot a handgun with a scope, it is hard to describe the difficulty in using one. The field of view of even a 2x scope is so small that hunting under 50 yards is going to be impractical. It can be done, but it's not easy. The other aspect is the area you can see through the scope is limited. By this I mean you only have a narrow eye-relief range, and it is generally much closer than you will shoot a handgun with no scope. There is also wobble, which makes offhand shooting very difficult without practice. All in all, I consider scopes on a handgun a resting proposition, and if you are hunting, a longer range affair where the animals will be standing still. I had a 3x Burris (a good USA made one too) on a TC Contender. It definitely made shooting at the range off a bench nice. I don't think it is all that great for hunting. Most of my hunting is under 50 yard shots, and a scope is simply not practical in that scenario.

Red dots and all the different variants of the dot sights are better now than ever. There were really good ones 10 years ago, but prices were astronomical. The best then were the big tube red dots. They are tough and reliable, easy to mount and use. The drawback of course was that they were as big, or bigger than a scope. The low profile red dots and reflex sights were a ton of money, and also problems with details such as mounting or batteries. Today you can buy a mount for most new guns of some kind, and you no longer have to remove the sight to change batteries. Today I would only put a low profile sight on a handgun, I can not think of any reason to use a big tube type red dot anymore unless it is what you have. They work as good as they ever did. Focusing on the low profile, especially the micro size sights, I'm really impressed with where they are now. Field of view is infinite, and the ring around the glass is so thin now it doesn't hinder you at all. Eye relief is infinite. Some of the extremely small sights are kind of too much of a good thing, and require hunting for the dot. Most of them are just fine, and are as easy as sight alignment. Accuracy can be very good. I have good eyes, but even I admit is is way easier for me to shoot groups with a red dot than open sights. The biggest advantage to me is the ability to focus on the target. With open sights you have 3 planes, but your eye can only focus on 1. In open sights you are trained to focus on the front sight. The rear is close enough it is not too bad, until you get older. The target can be a little fuzzy. With dot sights you can focus on the target, and the dot is always a dot. In certain light it can become a star, but it doesn't really hurt anything. About the only problem I can foresee is if you have eye problems that don't allow you to see a light very clearly. I think I've heard of people talking about astigmatism, I could be wrong. Color blindness should not be a problem. Most dot sights allow you to change colors. The drawbacks to dot sights are the size and batteries. The size of these have become very small, even to the point they are now on a lot of concealed carry guns. That said, nothing can be as compact as open sights. The other problem of batteries is minor. Batteries last years, and are easily changed. There are battery-less sights out there, but as far as I know they use tritium, which has a practical use of about 10 years, maybe 15 depending on design. Not that fantastic over a battery that lasts 2-3 years.

Open sights are open sights. Everyone knows what they are. I will only say that I prefer mine square, meaning square slot in the rear, square topped, and square shaped front. I don't like any kind of dots. I don't like fiber optic. I do like my front sight orange. Size is definitely the biggest advantage, but another advantage is longer range shooting. When trying to shoot 200-300-400 yards, it is much easier to raise your front sight than it is to Kentucky windage a dot sight. This would only be for target shooting. If you are hunting beyond 150 yards, then use a regular scope for sure. At the very last few minutes of shooting light, it can be tough to get a good view of open sights. With only 5 minutes left (25 minutes after sunset) a deer and a front sight (even orange) are pretty much the same color. If you are in the open, it's better. In the shade of trees, it's bad. Both a dot and a scope are better in this regard. A dot sight allows you to accurately place a shot. A scope goes one step farther and might allow you to see a branch or something you didn't with the naked eye. This is less of an issue if you have binoculars.

I am still very much an open sight person. I do not currently have a handgun with any kind of dot or scope on it. I do see myself changing though, especially as my eyesight wanes.