opinions on aperture sights

[hornetguy]

Well I'm a bit late to the party. Not much to add to the conversation that hasn't already been said. I'll just say five pages of posts and not enough pictures. So I'll chime in with my vote for peep sights with a link to photos of some of my rifles with peeps.

The little Marlin was a gift to my great Uncle when he was a boy pre-war. He said it was quite used at that time.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/tFeFNJ5qNB1A8XQn6

Sorry, I haven't figured out how to get the pictures to post on the thread yet.

Rusty

I can show you, if you like? It's not terribly difficult....

[Rusty Goose]

I can show you, if you like? It's not terribly difficult....

That would be appreciated!

[Rusty Goose]

Ah, finally! Can't post from internet explorer, google works though. Live and learn...

[olafhardt]

I have made mý own peep sights for years. I take a piece of 1/8 steel usually 3/4 or 1/2 and bend it 90 degrees so that it is approximately 1&1/2×1/2 ell. Drill two holes in the long leg and tap the one closest to the short leg. Take a screw and slide it through the untapped hole and screw it into one of the scope mounting holes on top of the receiver. You can loosen this screw and swing the sight to adjust windage. If you put a set screw in the threaded hole, you can use it to fine tune elevation. Course elevation adjustment can be done with washers on the mounting
screw between receivers and the sight. In the upright leg of the sight drill whatever size peep hole you want. For a front sight I often use a piece of dovetail drilled and tapped for a 6,8 or 10x32 nylon screw which I nip pieces off of till I get the elevation right. If this is done sloppily it still works.

[Lance Boyle]

pietro, either that or a Lyman front globesight with a front aperture insert like the .22 target rifles of yore.

If you are only shooting round bull targets then nothing better than the two aperture set up.

I would not use that set up afield though, just a rear aperture and a post front.

[Kosh75287]

I like apeture sights over buckhorns, because the former tends to be easier for the human eye to "automantically" center. This cuts sighting time, which can mean better hunting results, and faster response to abating non-game animals (2-legged predators and other vermin), should the need arise.
On certain platforms not built for them, apeture sights can be labor- and cost-intensive to install, but the results tend to be worth it, especially on long arms that must often be shot quickly. The "Ghost Ring" rear sights on social shotguns seem to increase hits at "longer than usual shotgun" ranges, so I suggest that apeture sights on almost any long gun are a positive addition, so long as they do not interfere with telescopic sights.

[T.R.]

I have scopes on all my leverguns because of eye sight. So it goes.

[RSAPD]

I have the Henry 357 carbine as well and one of my favorite guns. I have many rifles with aperture sights as well and they can perform much better but it takes a tad longer to acquire the target. Also, test what aperture size is best for you under low light conditions. If you go too small, it can be too dark and look like spider webs are in the hole. You want as small as possible but not to the detriment of you seeing the target clearly. I know some manufacturer's give choice on sizes. I would think most of standard peep sights hole sizes would be fine for almost anyone at short distances, but everyone is different, so I think it is best to verify what size you need.

[hornetguy]

My accuracy has definitely improved with the Skinner sight, but for some reason, I can't group quite as well with it as with my Rossi .45, also with an aperture.
It could simply be I haven't found "the load" yet, but I'm going to experiment with a Fastfire red dot, to see if groups shrink any.
If it doesn't make a huge difference, I can always go back to the Skinner and use the red dot on another vehicle.
If all goes well, I might be able to do a range test Sunday afternoon.... stay tuned....

[W.R.Buchanan]

I have the Henry 357 carbine as well and one of my favorite guns. I have many rifles with aperture sights as well and they can perform much better but it takes a tad longer to acquire the target. Also, test what aperture size is best for you under low light conditions. If you go too small, it can be too dark and look like spider webs are in the hole. You want as small as possible but not to the detriment of you seeing the target clearly. I know some manufacturer's give choice on sizes. I would think most of standard peep sights hole sizes would be fine for almost anyone at short distances, but everyone is different, so I think it is best to verify what size you need.

The purpose of different aperture sizes is so that you can adjust the size so that the Front Sight is in focus. You use the Largest Size Hole that allows the Front Sight to be in Focus. It works like a Lens .

Randy

[huntinlever]

The purpose of different aperture sizes is so that you can adjust the size so that the Front Sight is in focus. You use the Largest Size Hole that allows the Front Sight to be in Focus. It works like a Lens .

Randy

I know the smaller hole gives a better focus, right? But I'd thought that also cuts down on available light - i.e., if you need the smallest hole to see, you've also cut out the possibility of a lot of usable light.

[FergusonTO35]

Some guns are just made for sights. I have two 94's, one 1978 that has a receiver sight and a 1985 that has a scope. Gave the latter some exercise today and it occurred to me how this rifle really is rather awkward to shoot with a scope. Cheek weld is totally off and the stock feels too short. My groupings with it are very inconsistent. Besides, the 94 is slim n' trim like a good shotgun and has a lively feel in the hands. Adding a scope just takes away from that. Only disadvantage, I really can't use sights beyond about 75 yards, and 60 is better. Of course, I already have plenty of scoped rifles for longer distances. I think I'll put the receiver sight back on and call it good!

[M-Tecs]

Some guns are just made for sights. I have two 94's, one 1978 that has a receiver sight and a 1985 that has a scope. Gave the latter some exercise today and it occurred to me how this rifle really is rather awkward to shoot with a scope. Cheek weld is totally off and the stock feels too short. My groupings with it are very inconsistent. Besides, the 94 is slim n' trim like a good shotgun and has a lively feel in the hands. Adding a scope just takes away from that. Only disadvantage, I really can't use sights beyond about 75 yards, and 60 is better. Of course, I already have plenty of scoped rifles for longer distances. I think I'll put the receiver sight back on and call it good!

These folks make a variety of add on cheek pieces that work very well.

https://accu-riser.com/

[FergusonTO35]

Thanks, will remember that.

[huntinlever]

Interestingly I've found a pair of lower power, cheap readers might make it doable. 1.5X, and I can see perfectly well from front post out to distance. Doubt I'd hunt with one, but it's still nice to think I can mount and use a peep for at least range time.

[FergusonTO35]

Hmm, interesting. I have no problem at all seeing sights. Biggest problem for me is at longer distances I can't really see the spot on the target I'm aiming at. Its sort of an educated guess. This happens whether I place the bead on it or use the six o clock hold. Having poor fine motor skills doesn't help matters. I'm blessed to have some very accurate scoped bolt actions in my arsenal as well.

[huntinlever]

Hmm, interesting. I have no problem at all seeing sights. Biggest problem for me is at longer distances I can't really see the spot on the target I'm aiming at. Its sort of an educated guess. This happens whether I place the bead on it or use the six o clock hold. Having poor fine motor skills doesn't help matters. I'm blessed to have some very accurate scoped bolt actions in my arsenal as well.

Yeah, to be honest I'm a bit surprised these might have "cured" the front sight problem, while also giving a good, clear longer range view. I don't mean the target isn't fuzzy when I focus on the front sight, it is, but the view is generally clear from 30" all the way out - all with a cheap pair of readers. See the eye doc next week and they know I want to be able to shoot. Fingers crossed.

Sorry about your tremoring. I know that can be pretty tough.

[hornetguy]

In the category of "updates".... I'm posting a couple of pics (pics are good, right?) I put a Skinner aperture on it, which improved my grouping considerably, but so far about 3" groups at 50 yards is what I can do.
Tonight I put a Burris Fastfire 3 red dot on it, and hope to get to try it out tomorrow afternoon, to see if grouping improves.

with Skinner sight....


with new Burris Fastfire 3...


target with Skinner sights at 50 yards...

[RSAPD]

The purpose of different aperture sizes is so that you can adjust the size so that the Front Sight is in focus. You use the Largest Size Hole that allows the Front Sight to be in Focus. It works like a Lens .

Randy

Agreed and that was my point to make sure you use the right size for the conditions. I have vernier sights with Hadley cups that give you the greatest flexibility and and peep/rear aperture sights that are not immediately adjustable. Regardless, you need a big enough hole in low light conditions to see well.

[FergusonTO35]

I switched back to the Williams FP on my 1985 94 and gave it some exercise today. My marksmanship still sux, but man this is so much more comfortable than a scope. When the stars align it makes nice groups out to 75 yards so I'm happy. The wooded hills where I hunt with a 94 you can't even see anything beyond that.