Originally Posted by iskra
I can't be sure! But all this maybe advocacy about "sightless", I think we may have a "Mole" amongst us! smile smile smile

Factually, such configurations deprived of iron sights, resulting entirely dependent upon scope for any semblance of accuracy at range. Such, depriving the rifleman of a very inexpensive, innocuous 'backup tool' for little good cause. As in the middle of nowhere with a busted scope, those set of 'irons' could be invaluable! The "trend away from irons", not so much the riflemen I suspect, as the manufacturers looking to squeeze every nickel out of each build cost factor!
Long term trends by now of decades, disdaining "irons". Not saying I'd put them on a gun - factory without. But appreciating that measure of ultimately cheap "insurance".

Course, "Cheap insurance..." I was the guy who advocated condom dispensers for the back seat of every car too! smile smile smile

Best! smile
John

John, you are a little older than I am, but I think JOC had a lot to do with guys wanting to go "sightless", as some of his customs were built that way. I think he had a preference for them with his "sheep" rifles because he was trying to lighten them up as much as he could. So, it was around the time he had his #2 rifle built that guys were getting intrigued by these sightless rifles. I believe that was in 1954.

Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.

BSA MAGA