I am putting a 416 Taylor "Bad Boy" Kit together for my own use this coming season. I was about to put and NECG see-thru rear w fiberoptic dots on the rifle, to match the NECG banded fiberoptic front; however, I got the heights wrong (thanks to Midway) so now I have to send the rear sight back and while looking through the NECG catalog, I noticed that they have a nice peep with large aperture that fits on a Weaver base....aha! Our actions are D&T for scope bases (two screws per bridge). So I wondered whether that wouldn't be a better solution for my 50 year old eyes (and I am very used to that setup having carried an FN FAL in the military).

This would give much better precision for deliberate shooting, of that I am sure. BUT how about a tight situation on DG? Anyone tried this and lived?

I am a big fan of peep sights for fast and accurate shooting.

I haven't used one on DG in a tight situation, but I have shot a few DGRs with peeps and liked them all. JJHACK's peep setup on his 458 Lott is great (built by John Ricks)...I got to shoot it a couple times in RSA. 470 Mbogo (Dave E) has peeps on both of his 470 Mbogos. One has the standard Ashley peep mounted on the rear scope base position, but my FAVORITE is his newer rifle with an Ashley peep mounted on the Dakota quarter rib. It is really fast for target aquistion...he has it in place to backup the scope....see pic...



Cheers,
Canuck

I am using a Lyman 48 reciever sight (Ghost ring set up) on my Lott. As Canuck said they are very fast and accurate to use. I would not have any other type of iron on this rifle.



Keith

The peep is good, probably the quickest sight with practice. I like the XO sight over the NECG because of the larger aperature. Something to keep in mind when juggleing irons and a scope. Most modern bolt rifles are stocked for a scope. Remove the scope and try to get down on the irons. It can be done, but I wouldn't want to rely on it when it counts. The XO and NECG which sit on top of the rear scope base will align the sights without shoving your cheekbone into your eye socket.

Dave

This is what Waffenfabrik Hein does with their peeps. Very nicel done I think. jorge

That Hein peep set-up is very slick I wonder if a good smith could install something sim.on my RSM and would it cost?

Jeff Cooper used a ghost ring on Baby -- his .460 G&A Brno 602. Also, see this thread: https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...109605#688109605Marc

Ah, the virtues of old age!

What base does the XO sight fit on, and who sells this XO aperture setup?

And NECG's larger aperture is .125"...is this big enough for DG?

Try the aperture and see whether you like it.

For me, standard, open, express sights with a wide gold-inlaid line at the base of the "V" in the rear sight blade and an ivory or fiber optic 3/32" bead up front are extremely quick.

So quick, that I have never felt the need for more speed.

xo is now xs
http://www.xssights.com/store/rifle.html

I'll second the XS sight system, I have it on several guns including my 416 Rem Mag.

XO has an aperature mthat will mount on top of a Weaver and Warne Premier (Kimber).

Dave

I think I am going to go with the XO ghost ring on a steel Weaver base. The only drawback I see is the lack of a good Weaver style QD ring that will go on the same base. Anyone know of one? I know, Weaver claims their standard ring is a QD but I don't think it's a really good one.

The Warne Premier rings have been discontinued, so that rules out the XO peep for Warne premier bases. Intersestingly, they still offer the bases but not the rings. It's a 3/8" dovetail anyway, probably not substantial enough.

The NECG peep is a fine choice for general hunting but it's not a ghost ring...it's a true peep and it obscures too much of the field of view to be used on DG IMHO. I will use the NECG front banded sight though w fiberoptic bead. I really like that setup.

I also looked at the Brockman's talley-style base with integral ghost ring...really neat but it's only for M70 and Montana. Brockman (and XO, probably one and the same) have a ghost ring sight setup for the Marlin lever rifle with ears on both the front and rear...that's the one I really like but of course both the bbl dia and the rear contour are wrong. I thought about trying to fit a set..I think those ears are really practical for this application. But it rules out mounting a scope on the rifle.

Final thought was to try to fit the Trijicon setup for the Rem 870...that would make a nice low-light set of irons. But I think too much surgery would be necessary.

So it's back to the XO for Weaver...

Here is what D'Arcy Echols does for a peep.

What's that unsightly pimple on the quarter rib?

quote:

What's that unsightly pimple on the quarter rib?

Nice comment, 500g. I can understand if you don't like it but you don't have to be snotty about it. You actually enjoy being a dick don't you?

Canuck

I've got the taller version of the XS Weaver mount ghost ring sight on my .458 Lott. I've also got the ghost ring XS sight which requires drilling and tapping the action (it's a different hole pattern than the normal Weaver base) on my VZ-24 in .376 Steyr. They both seem fast and accurate enough to be viable for the animals I'd hunt with those rifles.

How accurate is that peep mounted on the quarter rib? Seems like it'd take a bit longer to use than one placed closer to the shooter's eye.

That Echols sight is a work of art!

After a little more research, I have found that both Warne and Leupold make a steel QD ring that will fit on a Weaver base. I think Burris does too. I decided to go with Warne as a lot of folks here have been negative on the Leupold QD.

Strangely, I couldn't find the XS ghost ring product on Midways' sight despite the fact that the XS website shows Midway as a distributor.

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck:
Nice comment, 500g. I can understand if you don't like it but you don't have to be snotty about it. You actually enjoy being a dick don't you?

Canuck

And all this time I thought you were more polite than me.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck:
Nice comment, 500g. I can understand if you don't like it but you don't have to be snotty about it. You actually enjoy being a dick don't you?

Canuck

And all this time I thought you were more polite than me.

Since there were a million nicer ways to say you don't like the appearance of a peep sight mounted on the quarter rib, particularly in consideration of the fact that your insult was directed at Dave E's rifle and I was the one that posted the picture of it...and to my knowledge neither of us has been pissing in your cornflakes, I figured you MUST be fishing for a reaction from me. Being a people pleaser, I did not want to disappoint and gave you one. Hope you are satisfied.

Cheers,
Canuck

It's always nice to find out who is genuinely nice versus who is just pretending for public consumption purposes.



At least I do not pretend. My comments are genuine.

quote:

At least I do not pretend. My comments are genuine.

I am genuinely nice. (or maybe I have kept up an elaborate ruse for almost 9 years, and decided to throw that all away because you decided to get my goat??? Sure. )

So, how was I supposed to react to your insult? Nice people don't ever get ticked off? I suppose I could have said "jerk" instead of "dick" but they are pretty much interchangeable around here (ie. not strictly profane).

Cheers,
Canuck

Insult?

You need to grow less sensitive. That sight is an ugly pimple as I stated.

As I said above, there are a million ways of saying it that would have gotten your point across and would not have been taken as an insult (common courtesy/decency...eg. "that peep mounted on the quarter rib does not suit my taste", "No offence, but I don't like the way it looks", etc)...you chose one that would (ugly pimple). Considering who's rifle and who's post you were addressing (ie. not someone with whom you've had an ongoing problem), how else would one take it? I don't think it was a stretch to surmise that you were trashing Dave's taste for installing it and mine for liking it.

I am not particularly sensitive. But when I figured you were intentionally provoking a reaction, I gave you one.

Nuff said. Movin on....

Cheers,
Canuck

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck:


I am not particularly sensitive. But when I figured you were intentionally provoking a reaction, I gave you one.

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck:
You actually enjoy being a dick don't you?

You showed us who you really are. It took 9 years, but it was worth the wait.

Whatever, Dan. Feel free to think what you like. I am sure everyone that reads this will decide for themselves. I am not concerned about my rep being ruined by responding to your unprovoked insults.

If you think "dick" was too harsh and I hurt your sensitive feelings...please accept my apologies, and substitute "jerk" instead.

Cheers man,
Canuck

ps: Apologies to Russ Gould for the and the "drama".

Canuck,

Did you really think anyone would buy that feeble story about proving a reaction??

You let your true self show through and I appreciate that. It's nice to get past the insincerity and have some real communication.

quote:

You let your true self show through and I appreciate that. It's nice to get past the insincerity and have some real communication.

Yah, my true self is a real meany!! I used the word "dick" and put a winky face right after it!! For shame.

Good thing I am not Catholic or I'd have a tough time explaining myself tomorrow.

I think I'll go to my room and think about my actions for a while though...

I still can't believe you called ME sensitive.

Canuck

quote:

feeble story

ps: the only feeble story is you implying you didn't mean to be insulting with your comment.

Shall we continue to belabor this "hijacking", or should we continue it off line, or can we just move on? I'll happily let you have the last word, as long as it isn't another attempt to attack my character.

I have no intention to attack your character. Where did that come from?

You let your true self shine through and I am happy for you. You spoke with sincerity rather than feigned courtesy. Sincerity is something I value. And yes, I value sincerity more than courtesy.

Now, back to the matter of sights. Do you prefer the unsightly pimple style, or a receiver-mounted peep?

quote:

You spoke with sincerity rather than feigned courtesy. Sincerity is something I value. And yes, I value sincerity more than courtesy.

I guess it never occured to you that you can be both sincere AND courteous, eh? I gather that you feel one must be harsh in expressing one's opinions in order to be sincere??? I don't get that. Is all courtesy "feigned"? I happen to value truth and common courtesy. There is generally no need to offend in order to get your point across.

You're probably just jerking my chain to see how many times you can get me to reply to you.

Anyway, you already know my opinion on the peeps...its pretty clearly stated in my post at the top. But to be even more clear, now that aesthetics have entered the picture, I really like the functionality of a forward mounted peep (quarter rib or otherwise), but a peep on the reciever is a little more pleasing to the eye (more traditional, mainly). Form should follow function though, right?

Cheers,
Canuck

I still don't know why they keep iron sights on rifles today.

For close encounters with DG perhaps?

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

Watch out! The courtesy police are coming for you.

quote:

Watch out! The courtesy police are coming for you.

Grow up.

No offence intended of course.

Canuck

It never ends. At one time this was an interesting thread.

HAPPY NEW YEAR.. The LION Sleeps TONIGHT..
AK

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck:
... now that aesthetics have entered the picture, I really like the functionality of a forward mounted peep (quarter rib or otherwise), but a peep on the reciever is a little more pleasing to the eye (more traditional, mainly). Form should follow function though, right?

A longer sight plane is always more accurate with iron sights. Also a peep sight should become largely "invisible" when used, therefore it is better closer to the eye. JMO's of course.

I wonder why express sights are not installed closer to eye? Probably because unlike the nominally "invisible" peep ring, one must be able to see the expres V properly, shofting focus between the rear sight, front sight and target.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Brockman Ghost Ring. This is a fold down hide-away peep that has been custom fitted to the Talley QD's. I've only seen it in pics and talked to both Talley and Brockman about it. I'm thinking of putting it on my 416 Taylor (p-14 action).