How do your eye and brain use a front aperture sight?

[Naphtali]

I may be at the last thing to try. I have a vision problem. Wearing corrective lens spectacles, my best non-optical rifle aiming accuracy occurs when the bifocal corrects for intermediate (computer screen) distance and far distance. With this arrangement I have eliminated my problem seeing handgun sights and shooting accurately at handgun hunting distances. My head is more or less upright for this shooting.
***
While I do not shoot single-shot rifles, my best bet to query people experienced with an aperture front sight should be with long-range single-shot match shooters.

When rifle shooting, my head is positioned that I see front sight (and target) in the top inside sixth of my lens. In this position I see the target clearly but see only a hazy blur that is the front sight.

Aiming through an aperture rear sight, it makes no difference in acuity of front sight blade whether the barrel length is 16.25 inches or 26 inches. I will not use a barrel longer than 26 inches with one of my lever action rifles.

Last week I went shooting with a friend who brought a C. Sharps 45-70 target rifle. His front sight was not a blade; it was a tiny aperture.

Finally, to the question: Would a front sight-as-aperture function similarly to a rear aperture sight -- that is, will my brain automatically center my point of aim within its tiny front "hole?" If the front sight functions as I just described, my inability to focus on the sight, as an aiming point, becomes irrelevant.

[MT Gianni]

I find that a poor cheek weld to the stock gives me poor performance in shooting a rifle. I would not try to adjust my glasses adjusted vision to a rifle but find an optometrist that can give you a pair of glasses allowing you to focus on the front sight. Gianni

[bcp477]

The problem, as I am sure that you are aware, is that older eyes lose the ability to focus on the front sight, while keeping the rear sight enough in focus to make the system usable. That is the proper method for shooting with iron sights. I have had this problem for years.....now, with presbyopia added. So, while experimenting with different iron sight configurations, I arrived at a hybrid system which worked extremely well. This consisted of an aperture FRONT sight, teamed with a U-shaped rear notch sight (modified so that the U-notch visually "fit" closely the front aperture in size and shape). The procedure was to look THROUGH the front aperture, centering it on the target.....then place the aperture visually in the U-notch of the rear sight. This worked, as I said, extremely well, because the ONLY focus I had to maintain was on the TARGET in the distance - NOT the sights. To answer your question directly, yes, an aperture front sight works just like a rear-mounted one - your eye will automatically try to center the target in the aperture. I imagine that your friend has arrived at the same solution, more or less, as I did. So, yes, you have it correct - your inability to focus on the front or rear sight (or both), is irrelevant with such a set-up. As I said, the proper technique is to look THROUGH the sights and focus ONLY on the target beyond.

[felix]

In fact, take it one step further. There is a little man behind the target which will catch the projectile as it comes through. That would be the catcher's glove behind the target, the plate. It is your job to make sure the baseball gets into his glove without the catcher moving one iota.

Cassius Clay knocked out Sonny Liston with one well placed shot. The newsman asked him how did he learn to hit so accurately and so hard. Cassius said Sonny just walked into the swing, and that he, Cassius, was aiming at the clock on the wall. In other words, aim THROUGH the target. Human nature says to "slow down and stop" AT THE TARGET. So....make the target, real or imagined, way past the actual target.

felix

[montana_charlie]

I am familiar with 'follow through' when shooting a firearm with slow lock time, but 'shooting through' a target is something I can't envision.
However, those who do well with aperture sight setups focus on only one thing...and that is the front sight. The rear peep and the actual target are both allowed to remain somewhat blurred.

This is true, regardless of the shape of the insert used in the front sight.
CM

[405]

Really, it shouldn't be any different for those who are near, far, or in between sighted.... blurry or clear sighted. The front aperture (globe) should be in focus (as much focus as possible) with the target and rear sight slightly blurry. Ditto to mtcharlie's description. I've found with the rear sight close to the eye as with tang mounted sights the eye/brain will naturally "center" the front sight and target bull in that blur. That natural tendancy to center the target bull in the front globe is not as great and requires a little more concentration.

[MtGun44]

The rear aperture sight will significantly help sharpen the image of the front
sight due to the pinhole camera effect. This requires a fairly small rear aperture,
so has the disadvantage of requiring good light since you are excluding a lot
of light with the aperture.

Also, you should try a pinhole for your pistol shooting. Make up a flat plastic
or metal piece about 3/4" diam or so (shape is unimportant) and make a
SMOOTH EDGED round hole about 0.040" to 0.060" inch (less than or equal to about
1/16th inch). Somehow (tape is fine for an initial test) attach this to a pair of
normal distance vision glasses near the middle of your lense. Look thru the
aperture while sighting your handgun. I find that this provides a VERY dramatic
sharpening of the front sight and a substantial sharpening of the target.

I use the Lyman Shooter's Diopter, which is a small black plastic disk with a
~ 1/16th or smaller hole in the middle attached to a tiny suction cup to mount
it on the lens of your eyeglasses. I have let a lot of people try it for pistol
shooting and everyone has been amazed and wants to buy one. I have no
association with Lyman other than a satisfied customer. The similar Merit Optical
Aid (IIRC) has been around for years, and when I was younger, I didn't see
why you would need something like that. NOW, I understand. The Merit is
like a camera iris and has an adjustable aperture, and costs a lot more than
the simple cheapie Lyman thing. Pinhole cameras have no lens and focus from
right in front of the pinhole all the way to infinity, something impossible with a
lens. Pinholes are amazing things, essentially infinite range of focus at the cost
of a loss of brightness due to the size of the pinhole.



Give it a try, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised.

Bill

[felix]

Yeah, Charlie, no different in seeking to really learn the subject, and getting an "A" grade as a result. Work for an "A", and you will at most a get "B" in the course. Talking about the average mind here. Not really different in BR. You get the 40X scope to better see the conditions between you and the actual target. Not everyone needs that power to win a match, however. There are a few "A" students who get an "A" no matter what. But, they are rare as you know. ... felix

[Naphtali]

Since adjusting spectacles' prescription, I have no significant problem shooting handguns.

When rifle shooting, I presently use an adjustable aperture rear -- I own frame-mounted units and have tried tang-mounted. I own a muzzleloader with 32-inch barrel that mounts a Lyman adjustable rear sight and a Lyman 17 target front. I have used in the 17 the thinnest blade insert available mounted upside down. I tested this arrangement again yesterday. Bupkes! Front blade is extremely fuzzy. I then swapped it out for the smallest aperture insert, again mounted upside down. I was unable to see any outline of the front aperture -- just fuzz. I was also unable to see the target clearly. Did I insert too small an aperture front?

Since this appears to be a problem far-sighted shooters might have, because my prescription causes me to use my distance vision bifocal, there must be a solution.

I have not yet queried my ophthalmologist about isolating the top inside sixth or eighth of sighting eye's lens with a different prescription, this lens being a bizarre bifocal/trifocal.
***
I have tried Zeiss Gradal Top progressive lenses unsuccessfully. I will not use contact lenses under any circumstance. And I doubt ophthalmic surgery would correct all dysfunctions.

I really don't want to use an Ultradot L/T red dot sight, but it is small, non-magnifying, and less of an aesthetic eyesore than most optical sights.

[Jon K]

[quote=Naphtali;407558]Since adjusting spectacles' prescription, I have no significant problem shooting handguns.

When rifle shooting, I presently use an adjustable aperture rear -- I own frame-mounted units and have tried tang-mounted. I own a muzzleloader with 32-inch barrel that mounts a Lyman adjustable rear sight and a Lyman 17 target front. I have used in the 17 the thinnest blade insert available mounted upside down. I tested this arrangement again yesterday. Bupkes! Front blade is extremely fuzzy. I then swapped it out for the smallest aperture insert, again mounted upside down. I was unable to see any outline of the front aperture -- just fuzz. I was also unable to see the target clearly. Did I insert too small an aperture front?

Since this appears to be a problem far-sighted shooters might have, because my prescription causes me to use my distance vision bifocal, there must be a solution.

I have not yet queried my ophthalmologist about isolating the top inside sixth or eighth of sighting eye's lens with a different prescription, this lens being a bizarre bifocal/trifocal.
***


Naphtali,

I use the thickest post for th 17A, when using a post, the distance Rx allows me to see the post clearly and see the target.
On my 2 Sharps, I use the thickest aperture in the Globe sight, same thing, to see both sight & target.
The thin posts and thin apertures are too blurry, and hamper my sight and shooting. I've tried posts and apretures others claim to be "the Best", but all I can say is use what you can see, or get a Rx that will allow you to see the front sight & target, let the rear blurr. Experiment and see which works best for you.

Jon

[Morgan Astorbilt]

Naphtali, Are you wanting to use the rifle for target shooting? That is the only use globe front sights with apertures are made for. They are normally used with rear aperture sights. This is how each sight works. The rear aperture, as most shooters know, allows the eye to center itself (provided the sight is ignored, and just looked through), and no attempt should be made to center the front sight in it. This allows the eye to concentrate on the front blade/bead sight, and to a lesser extent the target, which should be a bit fuzzy compared to the front sight.

The function of a front aperture sight, is, when the proper size for the target and lighting conditions is used, to surround the black bull with a narrow ring(halo) of light, when the rifle is dead on. The slightest movement off center, will remove the portion of the light ring from the opposite side of the bull. The brighter the daylight, the smaller the aperture, overcast days needing a larger one, to maintain the proper halo, as well as a larger rear aperture to brighten the sight picture. This is why globe front sights come with a set of different size apertures, and better ear sights have adjustable ones.
When I was still shooting schuetzen, this combination, for 100yd. .22 rifle shooting, gave me as high a score with my BSA 12/15 Martini, as I got with my 20X Lyman Super Targespot.

I wouldn't use an aperture front sight for hunting, at least not a globe sight. You don't get the benefit of the halo effect, and these sights block out too much of the target. My son likes the Beech flip up combo post and ring sight, for cowboy action shooting, but it's not really an aperture in the common use of the word.
My opinions are based upon forty years of schuetzen shooting, but any small bore rifle target shooter will give the same explanation regarding the use of the sights.
Morgan