When is it preferential to opt for a receiver mounted sight instead of a traditional barrel mounted sight? What is the draw to "Rigby" receiver sights or receiver mounted peep sights for a big bore DGR?

Receiver sights are fine in broad day light but really suck at dawn & dusk. Then of course there is the ghost ring that attempts to overcome this shortfall & allow quicker target aqusition too.

Hello,
Couple items in favor of the receiver sight vs the open blade/leaf style sight common on classic dg rifles is that w/ the receiver/peep sight, one only has to place the front sight on the target for the aperture rear affords the shooters eye to automatically seek the center of the circle. Focus is only for two planes, front sight bead-target as opposed to rear blade, front sight bead and then the target. Not physically able to this very well, but some shoot quite well doing just that. Not as well as the aperture/peep style though I feel. Many long range matches 600-1000 yard shot and won daily using micrometer peep sights.
As for sporting use, sight mtd. closer to the eye, quite a bit when you think about it over the treaditional blade/leaf style, provides longer focal plane and generally more accurate. Older eyes can focus better with peep styles easier than the blade, bead, target set up. I understand the Mauser striker mtd. peep sight is a class act, but I am not sure how reliable the shot to shot placement would be for there is some loose tolerances at play, but for hunting purposes should work OK.

The aperture sight has no place on a DGR, IMHO.

1. The aperture sight is really a precision, middle to long range sight. DG is shot at close range and precision to that degree is unnecessary.

2. For close range shooting, the aperture sight is not as fast to line up as an express-type, wide "V" rear open sight - at least not for me. When express sights are provided with a gold centerline beneath the rear "V" and a highly visible front bead (such as the fiber optic), I have found nothing faster for close range shooting. That is the reason the British originally settled on this kind of sighting as the standard for DGRs.

3. An aperture rear sight is next to useless in bad light. A ghost ring is better (and if one must have an aperture sight on a DGR, it should be a ghost ring), but even a ghost ring is slower for me than express sights.

4. As a general matter, aperture sights are more delicate than the standing blade of an express open rear sight, which is the most robust rear sight yet devised. Once filed in, it is next to impossible to move or dislodge.

Finn Aagaard ranked them in this order for speed and accuracy combined, by scoring hits and timing with a stopwatch, for many shooters, himself included, best (1.) to worst (3.):

1. Low power scope: 1x to 2.5X
2. Ghost ring.
3. Open express sight.

I agreed with him then and do now.
My ideal rifle has a scope and a receiver sight as backup for the scope.

Nice to have a screw out aperature to convert a target sight to a ghost ring DGR sight.

How much do the cocking piece sights slow down lock time?

Open express sights are not all bad. They are very rugged.

Finn's results (which, BTW, were most likely obtained under good lighting conditions) suit me to this extent: I would sooner have a low powered scope on a DGR than an aperture sight.

I have often wondered if Finn had tested each man with all three sighting methods, whether there would have been much variation in his results from one man to another.

quote:

Originally posted by D Humbarger:
Receiver sights are fine in broad day light but really suck at dawn & dusk. Then of course there is the ghost ring that attempts to overcome this shortfall & allow quicker target aqusition too.

I agree.

In fair to good light, a stout partridge blade/ghost ring is one hell of a sight out to moderate ranges. But, they quickly loose that advantage over express sights in poor to low light.

An express sight may not be as accurate at moderate ranges, but, it's easier to aquire in poor light. The express sights on the new "African-Hawkeye" bests my favorite NECGs. If I have enough light to see what I'm shooting at, I have no problems getting a clear sight picture w/ the "African" sights. I cannot do this w/ any of my ghost rings as they reduce too much light.

GVA

GVA

A good receiver sight with the eyepiece taken out is an outstanding sight in any situation. It is basically a ghost peep and it works. It is more accurate for the most part than barrel mounted sights.

I like both the barrel mounted shallow V and the receiver, ghost, peep or whatever you want to call it, my guns have both and I use them equally well.

IMO if someone condems the receiver sight it is because they have not used it or used it improperly, it is the fastest sight in the world with a big apature. It is "easier" to see in poor light and does not tend to shoot high as the shallow v will in poor light.

Take your pick.

A ghost ring receiver sight and a white bead on the front, will work just fine in low light. This is a very fast combo to use and you will see almost twice of your target area as with an express rear sight. The express pattern is a good second choice, IMHO. I would not use a screw in aperature, as the hole is too small for a fast sight picture and will not work in low light.

Keith

I suppose the scout mounted scope still counts as a scope, but mounting it ahead of the receiver eliminates some of the reloading problems and certainly the eye relief problem. Could it be that we don't see it more often because it's not "traditional", or is there another better reason?

I suppose we are just lucky to have won WWII with that old Garand with of all things a PEEP sight.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
It is "easier" to see in poor light and does not tend to shoot high as the shallow v will in poor light.

Take your pick.

I'm unsure how that could be. It most definitely doesn't work that way for me w/ our issue SIG 550s and 551s. I need to rotate the drum to the open rear night sight to see in low light:

http://www.remtek.com/arms/sig/550/550.htm

Same w/ the ghost peep on my bow, the ghost sights on several of my rifles. Mine run between .218" all the way up to about a 1/4 of an inch. No matter how you look at it, they reduce the light to my eye. If I could just see my target w/ the naked eye, looking through the ghost ring kills off all the remaining light. Even if I can make out the front post, I can no longer see my target down range. In the past, I would look over my sights and not through them if point blank to overcome this. The SIGs above have the hood regulated so that inside of about 25yds you can look over the rear sight and paint your target w/ the entire hood and hit center mass. I had a mauser w/ NECGs set up to duplicate this.

As for the shallow V express sights. They do not cut the light. If I can just see my target, I can still get a sight picture. My eyes must be different than yours.

GVA

GaryVA,.
It has been my experience that hunters using the shallow V in the evening and early morning tend to not pull the bead down into the V because of the poor light and shoot high, self included, but I understand that and allow for it.. I am sure that some, such as yourself, who have used it more than most may well overcome that problem as its probably one of those deals where practice makes perfect and your familiar with it.

I can see an animal almost in darkness with a big open apature and white or gold faced square partridge, but I have shot that combo for years, and I actually never see the peep hole
I only see the big bold front sight, regardless of the lighting condition.

Don't misunderstand me, I like both the shallow V and the ghost ring and use them both on most all my personal rifles, even my .222 varmint rifle has a shallow V and I shoot varmints with its irons from time to time to stay sharp, I do the same with my .250 Savage 99 with a receiver sight with the apature removed that gives me about a .125 hole.

I sure hope that we don't see more rifles with scout mounted scopes. I would bet that the reason we don't see more like that now is it's flat out fugly. Put opinions vary, no matter how ugly one person might think something is there is another person that thinks its the prettiest thing in the world.

Red

The scout scopes may work fine (although FOV is significantly reduced). But I agree that, to put it kindly, as Wink has done, they are not "traditional," and to be blunt, as Dago Red has been, they are "flat out fugly."

Apart from the functionality problems noted above, aperture sights have the exact same "looks funny" problem, although to a lesser degree.

They just don't "look right" on a DGR - when you compare them with the traditional favorite, an open, "V" type express rear sight mounted on an island or quarter rib.

the answer to the question, IMHO, is to compare the amount of drop on pre-war (same-same open/receiver sights) VS today. I would expect the new stocks to make a receiver sight less "instinctive" for the shooter in sudden social confrontations.

JMHO,

Rich
DRSS

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
The scout scopes may work fine (although FOV is significantly reduced). But I agree that, to put it kindly, as Wink has done, they are not "traditional," and to be blunt, as Dago Red has been, they are "flat out fugly."

Apart from the functionality problems noted above, aperture sights have the exact same "looks funny" problem, although to a lesser degree.

They just don't "look right" on a DGR - when you compare them with the traditional favorite, an open, "V" type express rear sight mounted on an island or quarter rib.

All that stuff makes absolutely no sense....but I agree.

Wellllllll, I always thought the receiver sight looked good on a DGR if you use the right one. How about an old bolt peep on an Enlish rifle, makes ones heart warm and fluffy! then we have those nice Williams Guide peep sights and those custom dovetailed ghost peeps. Lots of choices for the young at heart.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
I would sooner have a low powered scope on a DGR than an aperture sight.

AMEN to that........but for me it's more than that.....I've been looking thru scopes for 45 years!

The ultimate DGR sight for anyone would be a 1X scope. Strange how some won't admit it.

Anybody here who has used an Ashley designed large apature ghost ring with a square post white line front blade would know that they are fabulous low light iron sights. As good as it gets in my opinon.

They are also the fastest acquiring iron built.

Ray take that Savage I just traded you out with that sight set up in low light and tell me what you think. Ive used them up till past when you can't see a cross hair in a good scope in low light. They are that good.

If you haven't sold it already

Aw geez, do I have to illuminate the reticle of my 1x scope too?

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Aw geez, do I have to illuminate the reticle of my 1x scope too?

Only if it set up on Weaver see throughs..

I prefer a ghost ring peep to the shallow vee, in all conditions. I just find target aquisition on fast follow ups to be quicker. So far my eyes don't have a problem with the ghost ring in low light, but I reserve the right to change my mind as my eyes age.

Cheers,
Canuck

I have an NECG gold bead front sight on my Lott. To make it show up better in low light, I just painted it with white fingernail polish. Easy to touch up, remove, and cost much less than a new insert.

Lyman 48 receiver sight without the apeture insert.


Keith

That's a nice set-up in the photo.
Very nice.
Myself, I like the factory set-up on my Ruger .458Lott RSM. It could be a lot better, but it works all the same, just fine.

Hello,
Recently put a NECG "peep" on my Ruger RSM, 458 Lott and removed the blade sight base, filled with a piece of ebony, and can say it works just fine w/ the factory issue bead. It was mentioned that the peep sight might be less sturdy than the std. shallow v type and can say the one from NECG is very stout in all respects.
Will say that the removal of the aperture to make a ghost ring sight w/ the NECG may not work for the opening is an elongated oval in shape. Have not tried it w/ aperture removed and not sure. I have used the receiver mtd. sight for a long time in a whole lot of circumstances and find it the most desireable of all metalic sights.

quote:

....the removal of the aperture to make a ghost ring sight w/ the NECG may not work....

I believe that the aperture piece, serves as the elevation lock on that sight. If not, then center the bead in the oval.

Keith

Hello Hog Killer,
I agree that approach may work. As you are aware, the human eye will seek the center of a circle and perhaps the "oval" opening may through off the eye a bit, but will find out later this week. I will be shooting the rifle and will shoot some with the aperture in place(yes, it does serve as an elevation "lock") and then without the aperture to see how much difference if any occurs. Do like their sight, but took a jewelers file and radiused the edges(sharp to the touch!) and reblued and makes a heck of a difference in feel and appearance.

You may be able to drill out the insert. To get a larger aperture and hold the needed elevation.

Keith

Surestrike,
Your right and I have used that sight before, had one on a 458 Lott Mauser. They work and you can see the curves of the earth on each side through that big ole hole! I still love that Sav. m-99EG in .308 and they are rare as hens teeth.

Today, I would not own a 458 Lott or larger caliber with a scope on it, I just do not trust scopes on the very heavy recoiling rifles from .458 Lott and up. They just tend to fail sooner or later, I have seen this so many times.

The other thing is I can shoot irons as well as a scope on those big calibers as far as they are intended to shoot. They are easier to pack around without a scope, they point better, and they are next to impossible to knock out of zero. All this might save my cookies some day, who knows!

Ray,

That is my take on it too. If you want a scoped rifle get a nice 416 or a .375.

My newest project is a Vecktor actioned .404 with a milled barrel (milled quarter rib, integral sight base, barrel band, and front sight band and base.)

There is no way that old girl is going to have a scope either. I am going for a certain "look" on that one you understand.

In my opinion, scopes absolutely ruin DGR's, and are pure heresy on them. I would not scope anything bigger than a .375H@H, and with the .375, would have a tip-off mount.

There is probably a reason the Military has gone to low powered and/or dot scopes for hunting the most dangerous game, but after hunting for years with a receiver sight mounted on my Winchester M-94 I had to try it on my bigger bores.


Left rifle is a VZ24 in .376 Steyr and the right is a Parker Hale in .458 Lott. So far they seem faster than a low powered scope if a bit less precise at 100yards. Front sights are big white beads. Both rear sights are XS sights the left is the permanent mount (with the nonstandard mounting hole pattern) and the right sight is clamped to a Warne Weaver style base.

Guess differences make it interesting.

Thanks for your input. IMHO, Any client bolt rifle for DGR (excluding possibly ele hunters) should probably have a scope as primary sight. But what I was thinking about would be this set up from Waffenfabrik Hein. Pretty nice back up system, if you decide to remove the scope.

Scroll to bottom of page (custom integral peep)

http://rifleactions.com/pricing.htm

quote:

Originally posted by GaryVA:
No matter how you look at it, they reduce the light to my eye. If I could just see my target w/ the naked eye, looking through the ghost ring kills off all the remaining light. Even if I can make out the front post, I can no longer see my target down range.

Thanks, I thought it was just me. This is precisely my observation as well. I have a couple of rifles with peeps and have hunted with them a few times, but they've sat unfired in the safe for a couple decades since. For my eyes, a ghost ring is so poor in low light that I just can't see it as a practical hunting sight. I find properly made express sights far better in low light.
----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Example of impact of apterture diameter on brightness and depth of field.

Pictures taken through large and small apertures of AR-15 carbine under same conditions. Distance between front and rear sights 13", distance from camera to rear sight, about 2", distance to target, about 6'. Camera was focused on front sight:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/Aperture_depth_of_field.jpg

The smaller aperature provides greater depth of field at the cost of a much darker image of the target. The large ghost ring aperature is brighter at a cost of less depth of field, but, it still provides a darker image of the target than the naked eye.

For low light, I prefer an enhanced contrast shallow V express sight. #5 below:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Enha...rast_open_sights.svg

Shallow V express sights do not utilize light bars like traditional partridge sights and therefore are not as precise. But where speed outweighs accuracy, they are superior. They were designed to focus on the front bead while aligned in the rear V. But in close quarter situations they are designed to be used like a shotgun bead. You focus on the target placing the bead below your POI and the rear V is ignored. This gives you a greater field of view and enables you to utilize all available ambient light.

The best factory production example of this sight I've found on a hunting rifle has been on the new Hawkeye "African" and "Alaskan". It is identical to the enhanced contrast shallow v in the pic above.

GVA