I'm interested in the personal experiences and preferences of guides/PHs and hunters alike: when the shooting is reduced from tens of yards to tens of feet, do you prefer iron sights or a low power optic - not an Aimpoint or other type of red-dot, but a low power variable (say 1-4 or 1.5-5) with heavy duplex, German 4, or something like that?

Thanks

RM

Rev... I took a Trijicon Accupoint 1-4X on my buffalo hunt in Africa. This is not my first scope with an illuminated aiming point/reticle; I bought a Burris Fullfield 1-4X illuminated scope 3 years ago and have used it in both tactical competition and for low-light deer and varmint hunting.

3-gun competitors and SWAT operators have been using red-dot 1X optics for faster-than-irons target acquisition for years. When it comes to fast target acquisition and quick follow-up shots, you simply can't keep up to a red dot if you're running irons. I know, I've tried it with both with my tactical rifles and a timer and scored targets, and the red dot is the winner for both speed of target acquisition and for accuracy.

For my Zimbabwe buffalo hunt last year, I practiced extensively with my Kimber 375 H&H and the Trijicon optic, at ranges from 10 feet to 250 yards. I did 90% of my practice out to 50 yards with the scope set at 1X magnification, and carried it in the bush set on low power as well. You can always turn it up if a long shot presents itself, but turning the scope down if/when you have a sudden charge to deal with seems unlikely to succeed in time. I can't say that I'm any faster with the 1X optic on my 375 than I am with irons, as I didn't use a timer. But it sure feels faster than irons, I can tell you that.

I'm not sure that an optic would be better for someone who's got a great deal of experience with irons and none with an optic. It would be interesting to time somebody so inclined and see how much practice it takes to bring him up to (or over) his irons speed.

I do prefer hunting with iron sights. My eyes are still good enough to allow me to do this.

I have shot a couple of buffalo and elephant at 10 yards or under with irons but never with a scope so it would be hard to compare.

The most important thing is to have a rifle that fits whether it is for irons or a scope so that when you shoulder it you can shoot.

BTW at less than 10 feet it does not matter, both of my eyes are closed, I do not want to see what will happen next.

At 56, my eyes aren't what they were when I was 26 or even 36. I don't need correction for distance, but can't see for beans without it up close. I can still manage irons, but barely, and that's if I have plenty of time to get the front sight nestled into the rear. I suppose that with a fast shot, a fiber-optic front might it feel more like shooting a shotgun (assuming the rifle fits like a shotgun).

Doc, what is the reticle on your Accupoint? I've always wondered how precise the triangle/post reticle might be.



Now that right there is funny...and oh so true!

Mike a low to no power scope has proven to be quicker and more useful in bad light than irons. You know I liked the VXIII in 1.5-5..
When it was time to close in on that once in a lifetime buffalo..it was on 1.5

You've seen what's sitting on the Ingwe Special.

It's the black-post-with-illuminated green triangle setup, and it's pretty damn precise, in my experience. The point of the lit-up triangle is as fine an aiming-point as any crosshair reticle, and I had no trouble holding groups of 2" or so at 200 yards with it.

When I was doing fast and close practice, I didn't bother to use the point of the triangle; I just put the whole dot on what I wanted to hit and pulled the trigger and worked the bolt as fast as I could. Practicing for a charging-buff sorta situation, y'know... but I'm glad I never had to put my practice to use on the buff hunt!

Nothing else could possibly belong there.......

My 375 H&H has a 1.5-5X20 in Alaska, and I keep it in the lower range. My 338 WM which I took to Africa has a 2.5-8 X 36. I used it on 2.5 90% of the time. Clear is more important that power IMO.

Phil Shoemaker (458Win) did a test a few years ago and like Ingwe says, low power scopes win every time and I agree. Also for you buff hunters, Craig Boddington is of the opinion that if you go after buffalo with a double (irons) vice a scope, you effectively cut your chances almost in half.

The only way I've found irons to come anywhere close to the speed of optics is when a rifle's set up like a shotgun, where the stock fit and shooter consistency are good enough to just use the front sight, ignoring the rear sight. With practice, accuracy sufficient on softball-sized targets out to about 50 yards, but accuracy obviously isn't as good as with optical sights, particularly at longer ranges.

I've always been able to shoot faster with an aperture over standard open sights.

A scope is still faster but not by much when running against a properly fitted rifle using an aperture.

Here's why I'm asking, knowing that the terrain in parts of Africa seem to be a lot like our southern palmetto scrub (i.e., dense). The other day I was on our lease and, instead of carrying one of my rifles with a low power scope, I had a M98 with a 3-9. A young boar, about 60 pounds or so, came running across a right-of-way at about 15 feet. I've shot enough birds over the years to still be pretty quick on the shoulder (with a shotgun, obviously), but even with the scope set at 3x, I couldn't find the pig very quickly and when I finally did he was just a black indistinguishable blob. If I'd have actually shot and wounded him, and he disappeared in the palmetto, as I said in my OP, the final range would have been measured in feet, not yards. I'm not sure my 2.5 wouldn't have still been a bit much, but the 1.5 would have been fine.

As I was walking back to the truck I was thinking to myself, "If I'd have had my A5 or M12..." That's why I asked about y'all's experience with a low power scope vs. iron sights (even fiber optic).

Mike: FWIW I had to track a whitetail (wounded by somebody else...) when I still had the Ingwe Special. In a creek bottom, on my hands and knees as it was literally too thick to stand up...and I spied a black dot on top of a log certainly no more than 15 feet away....it was his eye and at 1.5 X I promptly put a bullet through it. Search over!
So I know the scope works at those ranges!

Plus, the rifle shoots flat out to 15 feet!

Mike, FWIW (and forgive me for keeping on goin' back to the tactical side of things, here) for short-range target acquisition the difference between a 1X or 1.5X scope and a 3X optic is HUGE.

Example: a couple years ago I shot a 3-gun match with our very own Bluedreaux. Who is a scary-fast and scary-accurate shooter, BTW. On one stage my time totally sucked with my rifle; Blue came up to me when I was stowing my guns and casually turned the zoom on my -4X Burris optic down from 3X to 1X and said, "You might want to try that again, Doc." I did (not for score), and I cut my time in half. Just an example.

Ingwe: that big bugger that I posted the picture of a couple of months ago took a second shot to anchor, and it was at about 10-12 feet. Like you said, there was no problem putting the bullet exactly where I wanted it with the scope at 1.5x. But he wasn't running, either. If he still had enough steam to get up and run, my question is which would have been faster: the scope or the irons.

It really is a flat shooting rifle/cartridge combo, isn't it!

No apologies necessary. That's why I'm asking.

The scope...easily.

One reason it was there, I always cranked down to 1.5 whenever I walked up on anything that could bite or scratch...

The last DG safari I used a Burris 1.5-6X with an illuminated (red dot in the middle) reticle. The red dot was most useful shooting a lion in the dark. The scope was mounted in Talley QD mounts "just in case," and usually set own low power. I did not have to use the iron sights. In the event of a real close shot, such as a charge, I probably would not have had to use the iron sights or scope at all.

Agreed. One year I decided I wanted to kill a whitetail with an M1 Garand. Brown deer with brown background in low light is not conducive to an easy kill. Especially with 50 year old eyes. Finally managed to get a doe at 60 yards.

Besides take down rifles I like finding guns with different open sight options and some were added with no intention of adding glass. Some are quite useful such as a full stock CZ 22lr with adjustable elevation for sniping turtles accross the pond. A simple looking Dumoulin battue sighted rifle in 270 offers more accuracy than the running game sighted rifle was designed for.
Our DG rifles are for the most part are used with the sights it came with so its a crap shoot if they are what might be the best for you for more than as a back up.
With all that said if I'm paying money or flying a long way for a chance at a buffalo, I'm using glass. They just offer flexibility that irons do not.
Especially with the true 1x scopes we have now and then to throw in the illuminated reticle, we are living in great times. I have used the 1-6 Kahles and 1-6 Swarovski and can only imagine what the new 1-8 Swarovski might be like on a 375 H&H. If you have not viewed through a true 1x scope with good glass it is something to add to your bucket list to do.

Older eyes...?

Forget irons...

DF