Getting started with aperture sights for rimfire:

[Biologist]

I don’t have a saw or dremel accessible to me now, I need to figure it out over the weekend.

I hope I can get away without cutting the rail, if I can find stock extension and a cheek riser.

Every man needs a Dremel kit. I bought one many years ago (with safety goggles) when I lived in an apartment with little room to do anything. Along with a fold-up Black & Decker Workmate bench I stored behind a door. These two items became indispensable for my life. I still have them and use them all the time. The Dremel opens up a world of ability I never knew I had (not handy, don't have a shop, I am sort of useless for making and fixing stuff).

Beginner Dremel kits are cheap, (and buy an extra set of safety goggles so they are always available), and in no time you will find yourself buying parts and cutting, grinding, sanding, buffing attachments. A Dremel will change your life.

RE cheek risers: I have made several without any drilling. I buy 1 inch Velcro rolls (crappy tire usually has it in stock). I stick the loops on the side of the stock. The loops are soft so if you don't use the attachment your face will not mind the loops. The hooks go on the inside of the riser cover piece, e.g. a piece of closed cell foam, or leather, or neoprene, etc., for the riser. Because you stuck the Velcro on the side of the stock, the top is open underneath the cover for adding shims of foam or leather or whatever stuffing you want to shim it up or down with, and change-able in seconds. Tension of the cover piece keeps the foam shims from from falling out, or you can Velcro them in as well. The crappy tire Velcro roll strips I use are removeable, so its not a risk to try it.

One of my best versions used a cheapo neoprene scope cover from crappy tire. I cut in in half to use as the cheek riser cover, with Velcro on the side of the stock. I carry two pieces of closed cell foam in the ammo case. One piece thickness is for bench. For prone I add a second piece because you need a higher riser for prone. Simple and cheap, and comfortable to shoot with.

In my post #57 above, the first photo with the rail extender also shows a piece of suede leather I velcro'd onto the cheek piece. Because the cheek piece is adjustable I fitted the leather tight to the cheek piece with no need to shim foam under it. The neoprene scope cover fabric is ideal for velcro'ing on snug, but it can stretch to allow for foam shimming underneath it for a firm cheek weld.

 

[maynard]

Jumping back into this as I have been away shooting the West Indies Fullbore Competition. In regard to where the eagle eye in mounted, it goes in front of the front aperture, in other words iris, eagle eye, sunshade, target. This will make the target look bigger, so a larger front aperture is required. Shooting from 300 yards to 1000 yards the smallest setting that I used at those distances was a 6.2mm at 1000 yards. I cannot stress enough that a larger aperture is easier to center on the target than a smaller one.
As far as sight blinders go, I use a flip up one on my Knobloch shooting frame with my distance correction on my right eye (shooting eye) only. You can make a simple binder for your non shooting one out of oblique plastic like a windshield washer jug. Cut out a piece to suit and poke a hole in it just big enough to fit it between your rear iris and the rear sight.
My thoughts on diopters, coloured filters, and polarizers is that any lenses/filters between your eyeball and the target helps hide the target. Been there, done that. Your mileage may vary.

 

[JQIAN]

Jumping back into this as I have been away shooting the West Indies Fullbore Competition. In regard to where the eagle eye in mounted, it goes in front of the front aperture, in other words iris, eagle eye, sunshade, target. This will make the target look bigger, so a larger front aperture is required. Shooting from 300 yards to 1000 yards the smallest setting that I used at those distances was a 6.2mm at 1000 yards. I cannot stress enough that a larger aperture is easier to center on the target than a smaller one.
As far as sight blinders go, I use a flip up one on my Knobloch shooting frame with my distance correction on my right eye (shooting eye) only. You can make a simple binder for your non shooting one out of oblique plastic like a windshield washer jug. Cut out a piece to suit and poke a hole in it just big enough to fit it between your rear iris and the rear sight.
My thoughts on diopters, coloured filters, and polarizers is that any lenses/filters between your eyeball and the target helps hide the target. Been there, done that. Your mileage may vary.

This is the part I don't understand. Isn't eagle eye a lens too? I saw couple of variation such as 0.3, 0.5 and 0.75. Why is this lens in front of the front sight ok while the diopter in front of rear sight is not a good idea? Aren't they both between my eyeball and the target?

I intend to add an eagle eye with 0.5 power but as of now my front aperture is too small, it's either up to 4.3mm with iris or a fixed 5mm. So I use the rear sight diopter, it makes the both front aperture and target a little bigger and closer in the same scale. Why is it a bad idea comparing to front eagle eye?

 

[maynard]

JQIAN, I have spent a lot of time and money in different diopters, filters polarizers trying to find the perfect sight picture. Before the eagle eye was legal for fullbore I was planning on putting a 12-inch bloop on a 30 inch barrel to get the front sight out where I could focus on the front sight with a diopter and still see a round black aiming mark. With the introduction of the eagle eye the diopter was no longer require. with a diopter you need to open the rear iris as far as possible and focus the diopter about 18 inches in front of the gun. The turn the iris down until the target comes into focus. This always left me with a gray blob slightly out of focus aiming mark. The eagle eye allowed me to see a clear front sight and a plan iris allows me to see a clear/clean round black aiming mark without a bloop tube. This does however require a larger front insert of iris. Shooting fullbore you can use the same size front iris at 300 and 600 yards, however you need to go up about .3 mm to get the same amount of white around the target at 500 yards. At long range 800, 900 and 1000 yards I center the whole target frame in the foresight. These days I just use a plain iris in the rear, my regular distance script in the Knobloch shooting frame and .5 eagle in the front sight.

 

[JQIAN]

well, I am shooting 22lr. I doubt I would ever go over 200 meters with Anschutz.
For that, to me I think rear diopter or front eagle eye has no big difference.
I admit when I look through rear diopter, it's hard to make both front aperture and target in focus perfectly. But I don't have to because target is about 100 meter it's kind of blur anyway with or without diopter. So I just dial the rear diopter to make the front sight/aperture crystally clear. By using rear diopter I don't have to have an extra large front aperture because both front aperture and target are enlarged in same scale.

 

[maynard]

You are correct that the foresight needs to be clear and in focus and the target can be a little blurry, however I found with a diopter that the target was just a grey blob that was not aways round. A lot of long range shooters did use diopters before the eagle eye was legal to use. Once this happened just about every diopter user abandoned the diopter in favor of the eagle eye. Depending on your own eyesight some experimentation needs to be done. Some are okay using a .3 eagle eye with an iris range of 4.0-6.0. at all distances. Some are okay with a .5 eagle eye and 4.0-6.0 range iris. With my aging eyesight and astigmatism, I have found that using my regular distance correct on a shooting frame, larger range iris 5.5-7.5 with a .5 eagle eye works best for me. Like I mentioned earlier centering the whole 4ftx4ft or 6ftx6ft target frame is easier that trying to center the aiming mark with a bit of white around it.
For $hits and giggles take your iris right out of your foresight and shoot a group just using the front tunnel. You would think that you would end up with a pattern instead of a group, but you might be amazed on how well that you can group with a huge foresight.

 

[JQIAN]

You are correct that the foresight needs to be clear and in focus and the target can be a little blurry, however I found with a diopter that the target was just a grey blob that was not aways round. A lot of long range shooters did use diopters before the eagle eye was legal to use. Once this happened just about every diopter user abandoned the diopter in favor of the eagle eye. Depending on your own eyesight some experimentation needs to be done. Some are okay using a .3 eagle eye with an iris range of 4.0-6.0. at all distances. Some are okay with a .5 eagle eye and 4.0-6.0 range iris. With my aging eyesight and astigmatism, I have found that using my regular distance correct on a shooting frame, larger range iris 5.5-7.5 with a .5 eagle eye works best for me. Like I mentioned earlier centering the whole 4ftx4ft or 6ftx6ft target frame is easier that trying to center the aiming mark with a bit of white around it.
For $hits and giggles take your iris right out of your foresight and shoot a group just using the front tunnel. You would think that you would end up with a pattern instead of a group, but you might be amazed on how well that you can group with a huge foresight.

The major holdback for me to use front eagle eye is the enlarged target but not front aperture. And I don't want to have a huge front aperture such as 8mm to accommodate that.
The rear diopter has an option of 0x magnification for -4.5 to +4.5. Basically it acts as a diopter but with no magnification. I don't know how it's done like that but it's every expensive.
I just hope front eagle eye will have the same option and not too expensive, I will jump on board right away.

 

[JQIAN]

@Biologist, I got the rail and luckily I don’t have to trim it. The length is about right and height is also ok that I don’t need a cheek riser.
Going to range tomorrow to try it if the weather permits

 

[Biologist]

@Biologist, I got the rail and luckily I don’t have to trim it. The length is about right and height is also ok that I don’t need a cheek riser.
Going to range tomorrow to try it if the weather permits
View attachment 628033

Looks perfect!

I would still recommend some sort of thin cheek pad even if you don't need the cheek elevation. On my Anschutz 1907 with the adjustable cheek piece, I found my cheek slipped off the finished wood surface. I attached a piece of thin suede leather with the Velcro method I described above and as shown in the photo, and its quite grippy on the cheek and more comfortable than the bare wood. Thin neoprene is also a nice material to have on the comb. I was in crappy tire today and I see they have a neoprene rifle buttstock sock with cartridge loops. It slides over the buttstock, but knowing these types of sportsman's products, its likely too narrow to fit over a target or BR stock. But it could be cut and trimmed for a nice velcro'd on cheek pad.

Best of luck at the range. Show us some target photos when you get it all centered up!

 

[JQIAN]

Finally go chance today to zero it again with rail. To my surprise I had to dial up 2 full round (20 clicks) to make it zero again. That is 8cm at 100 meter. I didn’t think 8mm elevation of the sight can have this much impact.
Anyway, after then I did 10 shots , not perfect but not bad either. It’s about 1.8 inches at 100 meters.
I wrapped up this season now and will go out again when next spring comes.

Looks perfect!

I would still recommend some sort of thin cheek pad even if you don't need the cheek elevation. On my Anschutz 1907 with the adjustable cheek piece, I found my cheek slipped off the finished wood surface. I attached a piece of thin suede leather with the Velcro method I described above and as shown in the photo, and its quite grippy on the cheek and more comfortable than the bare wood. Thin neoprene is also a nice material to have on the comb. I was in crappy tire today and I see they have a neoprene rifle buttstock sock with cartridge loops. It slides over the buttstock, but knowing these types of sportsman's products, its likely too narrow to fit over a target or BR stock. But it could be cut and trimmed for a nice velcro'd on cheek pad.

Best of luck at the range. Show us some target photos when you get it all centered up!

 

[Biologist]

Nicely done JQIAN!

 

[machohugeaxe]

New to aperture sights as well... anyone experience when looking through the rear sight, the circle isn't perfectly round? it isn't for me but it is for other people who look through the same sight. Rear sight in my eye is slightly oblong, the top 80% is round circle, the bottom is a blurry flat edge, no matter the relative eye position. Wondering if I should go for an iris and make it smaller. Seems like a relatively unique issue, not finding much online about it. Maybe if i'm stuck this way I just have to center the front sight in the picture as best i can using the just top portion of the rear sight circle.

 

[CanuckCooper]

New to aperture sights as well... anyone experience when looking through the rear sight, the circle isn't perfectly round? it isn't for me but it is for other people who look through the same sight. Rear sight in my eye is slightly oblong, the top 80% is round circle, the bottom is a blurry flat edge, no matter the relative eye position. Wondering if I should go for an iris and make it smaller. Seems like a relatively unique issue, not finding much online about it. Maybe if i'm stuck this way I just have to center the front sight in the picture as best i can using the just top portion of the rear sight circle.

I’ve encountered the same thing on two different guns, one was cheek piece height being high, if my cheek weld is such where downward pressure is more than nominal, I find it distorts my sight picture. On the other it was the flat base under the front sight iris that lead to a similar sight picture. I’ve favoured using a blinder and ensuring my rear iris is shaded, with the target and the front iris in light ( I use a visor for that purpose).

 

[Biologist]

New to aperture sights as well... anyone experience when looking through the rear sight, the circle isn't perfectly round? it isn't for me but it is for other people who look through the same sight. Rear sight in my eye is slightly oblong, the top 80% is round circle, the bottom is a blurry flat edge, no matter the relative eye position. Wondering if I should go for an iris and make it smaller. Seems like a relatively unique issue, not finding much online about it. Maybe if i'm stuck this way I just have to center the front sight in the picture as best i can using the just top portion of the rear sight circle.

Wondering if you have astigmatism? Do you wear Rx glasses?

Two apertures front and rear create an almost perfect parallel light beam reaching the eye, which helps create that amazing depth of field focus. But with astigmatism, the cornea being not symmetrically curved, results in those incoming parallel light beams being warped into a non-symmetrical image on the back of the eye. That might be the cause of the distortion you are seeing.

I have astigmatism and I wear Rx glasses, and that corrects the issue, although I am due for an exam and updated prescription.

The factory iris on my rear sight is 1.1mm. I recently replaced it with a rear sight adjustable iris. I found the focus improved on the front sight aperture rings when I opened the rear iris to 1.4mm. So yes you might want to try a rear sight iris, and I am betting it will improve that non symmetrical image with a slightly wider rear aperture opening. But it won't fully correct an astigmatism problem if that is what you have. But an Rx eyeglasses will correct it. Glasses do prevent one from getting the full field of view. I coated the rim of my rear sight iris with Permatex "Liquid electrical tape", which prevents the iris from scratching my Rx lenses when I press my glasses up against the iris.

The aperture sight companies make various monocle attachments to the rear sight so that if you do not want to wear eyeglasses, you can attach an Rx monocle very close to the rear iris. At our range shooting glasses are required, and I like to wear protective glasses with all my firearms anyways, so I wear the Rx glasses instead of the monocle option.

 

[CanuckCooper]

Lots of info here: http://youtube.com/c/heinzreinkemeier

Typical rear iris diameter is usually 1.8mm. I run an adjustable, 1.8 is my starting point. On indoor ranges I tend to open it up a little given it’s usually darker. Outdoors I run 1.8 or a touch lower if it really bright. You want your target well illuminated. Ensure it’s not shaded by range bunkers or trees if possible. A blinder and rear iris in shade was key for me.

Cheers

 

[JQIAN]

New to aperture sights as well... anyone experience when looking through the rear sight, the circle isn't perfectly round? it isn't for me but it is for other people who look through the same sight. Rear sight in my eye is slightly oblong, the top 80% is round circle, the bottom is a blurry flat edge, no matter the relative eye position. Wondering if I should go for an iris and make it smaller. Seems like a relatively unique issue, not finding much online about it. Maybe if i'm stuck this way I just have to center the front sight in the picture as best i can using the just top portion of the rear sight circle.

It's definitely astigmatism, has nothing to do with eye position to rear sight.
I have used 3 different rear aperture, one fixed size at 1.1mm, one with iris from 0.5-3.2mm, one with iris from 0.8-2.8mm, all the same regardless where I position my eye.
I have myopia -2.75, presbyopia +1.75, astigmatism -1.5.
When I wear my Rx glasses, this issue is less profounding. When I wear contact lens without astigmatism correction this issue is very much profounding. I asked my eye doctor, he confirms that.
As other said, a blinder helps a bit, but not completely solve the issue. So does the enlarged rear aperture. I turned my rear to 1.5 to 1.8mm and I feel comfortable. But I have rear diopter which enlarges the front sight/aperture from 1x-1.5x, so 1.8mm rear aperture is not too big for me.

 

[islandguy]

It's definitely astigmatism, has nothing to do with eye position to rear sight.
I have used 3 different rear aperture, one fixed size at 1.1mm, one with iris from 0.5-3.2mm, one with iris from 0.8-2.8mm, all the same regardless where I position my eye.
I have myopia -2.75, presbyopia +1.75, astigmatism -1.5.
When I wear my Rx glasses, this issue is less profounding. When I wear contact lens without astigmatism correction this issue is very much profounding. I asked my eye doctor, he confirms that.
As other said, a blinder helps a bit, but not completely solve the issue. So does the enlarged rear aperture. I turned my rear to 1.5 to 1.8mm and I feel comfortable. But I have rear diopter which enlarges the front sight/aperture from 1x-1.5x, so 1.8mm rear aperture is not too big for me.

This unit helped my astigmatism: https://www.ebay.ca/sch/i.html?_id=... CLS Vari Focal Astigmatic Iris System&_sis=1

 

[JQIAN]

This unit helped my astigmatism: https://www.ebay.ca/sch/i.html?_id=... CLS Vari Focal Astigmatic Iris System&_sis=1

I have seen this unit before when I bought the iris/color filter/combination from the same seller.
And I decided it’s not worth the money.
Any astigmatism less than 2 is considered minor and I can live with a very slight oval kind of shape of rear aperture.
When looking through diopter the astigmatism is having even less noticeable impacts

 

[maynard]

The problem with Rx regular glasses it that the optical centre of the lens is not where you are looking thru when you are in a shooting position. Chances are you are looking thru the top corner of the lens. Most people have no problem spending 2k on a rifle or $100+ for a brick of ammo but their ass puckers if they have to spend a couple hundred on a pair is Knobloch or Champions shooting frames and have a lens ground. These shooting frames are fully adjustable so the lens is in the correct position and parallel to the iris.

 

[Biologist]

The problem with Rx regular glasses it that the optical centre of the lens is not where you are looking thru when you are in a shooting position. Chances are you are looking thru the top corner of the lens. Most people have no problem spending 2k on a rifle or $100+ for a brick of ammo but their ass puckers if they have to spend a couple hundred on a pair is Knobloch or Champions shooting frames and have a lens ground. These shooting frames are fully adjustable so the lens is in the correct position and parallel to the iris.

Yes.

So far I am getting by with my Rx glasses, peering through the top corner, with the lens on an angle, and its not the best as pointed out. I have a line on a used pair of Knobloch frames with monocle frame. The Knobloch's are amazing and can be adjusted in all dimensions to fit any head and face, with perfect alignment of Rx lenses.

However my range requires shooting safety glasses, and in any case I want full eye shield coverage, and the Knoblochs do not provide the coverage I need.

There is another solution which is the "monoframe" monocle holders that are made to fit onto the rear sight, and you can wear your shooting glasses (although wearing shooting glasses will reduce the field of view because you cannot get close to the rear aperture). The monocle lens can be ground by your optician to whatever correction you need. Nordic Marksman carries these monoframes, e.g. :







I could use non-Rx shooting glasses, and use the monoframe on the rear sight. However since I need bifocals for near and far (progressives don't work for me), I would lose the ability to see clearly the flags, and to focus up close. I already use over-the-glasses safety glasses, which work, but are clunky and reduce field of view for apertures or scopes.

Its all trade-offs, and its a tough dilemma, and does not get easier as our eyes age.

My next attempt at improving things is getting a pair of shooting glasses with the insert-able Rx frames on the inside, which sit closer to the eye and might allow for more central viewing through the Rx lens.