Peep sights

[big bear]

Any risks using tang mounted peep sights

I have tang mounted peep sights on Browning lever rifles (218Bee and 32-20). I read somewhere years ago a warning against using this type of sight on heavy recoiling large bore rifle because of the risk of eye injury. I think it was in one of Elmer Keith's books. I'd love any serious comments on this matter.The sight issue came up in a discussion on sights for big game hunting rifles. I would think this caveat would not apply to tang sights being used on target rifles where hasty shots in awkward positions would not be a factor.

 

[9.3mauser]

I remember reading that in Keith's book, 'Big Game Rifles & Cartridges. I'm going from memory since I no longer own the book, but the story involves a woman who was shooting prone at an extreme uphill angle at a goat. Allegedly, the recoil drove the sight back into her eye. It's not much different from being "scoped" by a modern rifle, so it's certainly plausible, but this is the only instance of it happening that I can remember reading about, and the story has taken on a life of it's own over the years. I'm not even certain Keith witnessed this, or is just relating the story 2nd or 3rd hand.

 

[dan belisle]

I remember reading that in Keith's book, 'Big Game Rifles & Cartridges. I'm going from memory since I no longer own the book, but the story involves a woman who was shooting prone at an extreme uphill angle at a goat. Allegedly, the recoil drove the sight back into her eye. It's not much different from being "scoped" by a modern rifle, so it's certainly plausible, but this is the only instance of it happening that I can remember reading about, and the story has taken on a life of it's own over the years. I'm not even certain Keith witnessed this, or is just relating the story 2nd or 3rd hand.

I thought that was a cocking piece peep. Like you, read it long ago though. - dan

 

[9.3mauser]

I thought that was a cocking piece peep. Like you, read it long ago though. - dan

It could well be. That's the only story I recall reading where someone got their eye poked out though.

 

[buck knife]

Absolutely love peepsights on my hunting rifles,the xs ghost ring set up is on quite a few of my iron sight rifles,I have them on my Marlin 336 lever gun in .35 remington,what a nice woods walking rifle it has been with this sight combo.

I've taken several deer I've jumped out of their beds still hunting with the xs peep sight combos,such fast and easy target aquistion.

 

[old303]

It could well be. That's the only story I recall reading where someone got their eye poked out though.

That would be back when folk were too young to need glasses and didn't know to wear eye protection. Can't imagine picking up a firearm without corrective eyepro nowadays.

And even then, the incident required a confluence of everything going wrong at the same time to end up that way.

 

[jjohnwm]

Not really sure that this strictly qualifies as an aperture sight, since it mounts into the barrel dovetail intended for the standard rear sight and thus sits further forward than a receiver- or tang-mounted sight. It's made by Marbles, replaces the rear sight and is adjusted for elevation by a stepped elevator that is just held down by the spring tension of the sight body. Windage is altered by driving it, or the front sight blade, left and right within the dovetail...just like old-style typical open sights.


It is much more of a hunting sight than one for targets, and is much more of a PITA to get perfectly adjusted...but also very resistant to misadjustment by accident. The large aperture means it is more difficult to obtain the kind of pinpoint accuracy that a smaller aperture further rear can provide, but it is quite sufficient to produce groups at 100yd that are usually around 1.5 inches. Might do better with a scope, or a smaller aperture further back, or with another shooter with younger eyes...but might not either. It's good enough for what I want out of this gun; it's a Henry Mare's Leg with full-length buttstock. I wanted one for several years, ever since seeing pics of Shellshucker's pair of them; finally put this one together and it does not disappoint.

I have this sight on 4 or 5 other rifles as well...a Henry single shot, Uberti rolling block, Winchester levers...and I love it. The airy open construction and big aperture seems to make it more useful in lower light than standard receiver sights. It works great with either bead sights (FO or brass) or flat-top posts.

Regarding the potential danger of tang-mounted sights: I had an unpleasant mishap a few years back, using a C.Sharps single wearing such a sight. Approaching a downed animal, I somehow got the sight folded down flat, I think caused by some thick brush I had to elbow my way through. Arriving at the critter, it spooked and began to struggle to its feet. I threw the gun up and quickly got off a shot, instinctively using the barrel-mounted open sight...which resulted in driving the end of the tang sight through my cheek. Ugly nasty gash, lots of blood, really stupid-looking trophy picture, felt like an idiot.

If there had been no open sight....I think I would have not fired...maybe? But throwing the rifle to my cheek and seeing a familiar sight picture, I just followed through and triggered the shot.

What if the tang had been folded only half-way down? It would not have been blocking the sight picture, so I likely would have done the same thing...except the end of the tang would have ended up in my eye rather than in my mouth.

It spooked me badly enough that I removed the tang-mounted sights from several hunting rifles I had them mounted on. I still have a single one left, mounted on an 1886 that has no barrel mounted sight at all. I can't touch that rifle without thinking about that incident, so I'm pretty sure it will never be repeated; creeps me out a bit just writing this.

 

[dan belisle]

That would be back when folk were too young to need glasses and didn't know to wear eye protection. Can't imagine picking up a firearm without corrective eyepro nowadays.

And even then, the incident required a confluence of everything going wrong at the same time to end up that way.

"Didn't know how"? Eye protection, and hearing protection weren't a thing until the 70's in most industries, I can't see why hunters from a few decades before that would be using such. I shot a lot of different firearms growing up, again, no eye or ear protection available at all. - dan

 

[big bear]

"Didn't know how"? Eye protection, and hearing protection weren't a thing until the 70's in most industries, I can't see why hunters from a few decades before that would be using such. I shot a lot of different firearms growing up, again, no eye or ear protection available at all. - dan

Even today eye protection when shooting is far, far from universal. I have been on many guided hunts and except for one nearly blind guide none of the guides wore eye protection and most of the hunters used no eye or ear protection. At my gun club the range rules state eye protection is mandatory.75% of shooters don't wear eye protection. I have given up suggesting they protect their kids eyes, not worth the ensuing arguments/ill will..

 

[fingers284]

Even today eye protection when shooting is far, far from universal. I have been on many guided hunts and except for one nearly blind guide none of the guides wore eye protection and most of the hunters used no eye or ear protection. At my gun club the range rules state eye protection is mandatory.75% of shooters don't wear eye protection. I have given up suggesting they protect their kids eyes, not worth the ensuing arguments/ill will..

Now thats a new one on "a waist of money" extreme.

 

[big bear]

Now thats a new one on "a waist of money" extreme.

The "nearly blind guide" was o.k. if he wore his glasses. He took them off to glass and one time when he giot up from sitting behind the spotting scope he couldn't find his glasses. What a mess. I wasn't worried as the horses knew their way home. I was hunting with my young son so I saw that he went with the good guide. I got a moose and an elk on that hunt and my son an elk. Pretty sure the outfitter hired him because he was a rodeo guy and good with horses , he didn';t bring him back the next year.

 

[big bear]

Not really sure that this strictly qualifies as an aperture sight, since it mounts into the barrel dovetail intended for the standard rear sight and thus sits further forward than a receiver- or tang-mounted sight. It's made by Marbles, replaces the rear sight and is adjusted for elevation by a stepped elevator that is just held down by the spring tension of the sight body. Windage is altered by driving it, or the front sight blade, left and right within the dovetail...just like old-style typical open sights.
View attachment 757817

It is much more of a hunting sight than one for targets, and is much more of a PITA to get perfectly adjusted...but also very resistant to misadjustment by accident. The large aperture means it is more difficult to obtain the kind of pinpoint accuracy that a smaller aperture further rear can provide, but it is quite sufficient to produce groups at 100yd that are usually around 1.5 inches. Might do better with a scope, or a smaller aperture further back, or with another shooter with younger eyes...but might not either. It's good enough for what I want out of this gun; it's a Henry Mare's Leg with full-length buttstock. I wanted one for several years, ever since seeing pics of Shellshucker's pair of them; finally put this one together and it does not disappoint.

I have this sight on 4 or 5 other rifles as well...a Henry single shot, Uberti rolling block, Winchester levers...and I love it. The airy open construction and big aperture seems to make it more useful in lower light than standard receiver sights. It works great with either bead sights (FO or brass) or flat-top posts.

Regarding the potential danger of tang-mounted sights: I had an unpleasant mishap a few years back, using a C.Sharps single wearing such a sight. Approaching a downed animal, I somehow got the sight folded down flat, I think caused by some thick brush I had to elbow my way through. Arriving at the critter, it spooked and began to struggle to its feet. I threw the gun up and quickly got off a shot, instinctively using the barrel-mounted open sight...which resulted in driving the end of the tang sight through my cheek. Ugly nasty gash, lots of blood, really stupid-looking trophy picture, felt like an idiot.

If there had been no open sight....I think I would have not fired...maybe? But throwing the rifle to my cheek and seeing a familiar sight picture, I just followed through and triggered the shot.

What if the tang had been folded only half-way down? It would not have been blocking the sight picture, so I likely would have done the same thing...except the end of the tang would have ended up in my eye rather than in my mouth.

It spooked me badly enough that I removed the tang-mounted sights from several hunting rifles I had them mounted on. I still have a single one left, mounted on an 1886 that has no barrel mounted sight at all. I can't touch that rifle without thinking about that incident, so I'm pretty sure it will never be repeated; creeps me out a bit just writing this.

Thanks for sharing your experience. I don't feel bad now about heeding that old book's warning.

 

[Snider shooter]

Not really sure that this strictly qualifies as an aperture sight, since it mounts into the barrel dovetail intended for the standard rear sight and thus sits further forward than a receiver- or tang-mounted sight. It's made by Marbles, replaces the rear sight and is adjusted for elevation by a stepped elevator that is just held down by the spring tension of the sight body. Windage is altered by driving it, or the front sight blade, left and right within the dovetail...just like old-style typical open sights.
View attachment 757817

It is much more of a hunting sight than one for targets, and is much more of a PITA to get perfectly adjusted...but also very resistant to misadjustment by accident. The large aperture means it is more difficult to obtain the kind of pinpoint accuracy that a smaller aperture further rear can provide, but it is quite sufficient to produce groups at 100yd that are usually around 1.5 inches. Might do better with a scope, or a smaller aperture further back, or with another shooter with younger eyes...but might not either. It's good enough for what I want out of this gun; it's a Henry Mare's Leg with full-length buttstock. I wanted one for several years, ever since seeing pics of Shellshucker's pair of them; finally put this one together and it does not disappoint.

I have this sight on 4 or 5 other rifles as well...a Henry single shot, Uberti rolling block, Winchester levers...and I love it. The airy open construction and big aperture seems to make it more useful in lower light than standard receiver sights. It works great with either bead sights (FO or brass) or flat-top posts.

Regarding the potential danger of tang-mounted sights: I had an unpleasant mishap a few years back, using a C.Sharps single wearing such a sight. Approaching a downed animal, I somehow got the sight folded down flat, I think caused by some thick brush I had to elbow my way through. Arriving at the critter, it spooked and began to struggle to its feet. I threw the gun up and quickly got off a shot, instinctively using the barrel-mounted open sight...which resulted in driving the end of the tang sight through my cheek. Ugly nasty gash, lots of blood, really stupid-looking trophy picture, felt like an idiot.

If there had been no open sight....I think I would have not fired...maybe? But throwing the rifle to my cheek and seeing a familiar sight picture, I just followed through and triggered the shot.

What if the tang had been folded only half-way down? It would not have been blocking the sight picture, so I likely would have done the same thing...except the end of the tang would have ended up in my eye rather than in my mouth.

It spooked me badly enough that I removed the tang-mounted sights from several hunting rifles I had them mounted on. I still have a single one left, mounted on an 1886 that has no barrel mounted sight at all. I can't touch that rifle without thinking about that incident, so I'm pretty sure it will never be repeated; creeps me out a bit just writing this.

That’s the same site I put on my Heritage Rancher. I didn’t like the rear site that was on it. I was looking at sites at a store and decided to give it a try. Gives a good site picture and much faster to align on a running rabbit than to site that came on it. Site was originally meant for 22 bullseye shooting at 25 m.

 

[rombat]

Redfield 70H on a Savage 99 in 30-30

 

[SuperCub]

^^ Nice set up there. Classic Fudd. ^^

 

[Snowy Owl]

... Regarding the potential danger of tang-mounted sights: I had an unpleasant mishap a few years back, using a C.Sharps single wearing such a sight. I somehow got the sight folded down flat, I think caused by some thick brush I had to elbow my way through. ... I threw the gun up and quickly got off a shot, instinctively using the barrel-mounted open sight...which resulted in driving the end of the tang sight through my cheek.

I read your post very carefully. I was sometimes thinking about mounting tang sights on some of my rifles - lever action rifles. I will not be thinking about tang sights anymore.

 

[old303]

Tang sights would be good for deliberate long-range shots, but for situations that might call for a snap shot you don't want to have to take extra actions like flipping it up. Likewise having to power up a red dot or get the covers off a scope etc. A thick-brush short-range gun should be more point-and-shoot. But sometimes business comes up at short range while you're holding your long-range rifle.

And with anything, considering the possible consequences of getting it wrong. Some things don't matter as much, others could do dire hurt and need extra care.

 

[jjohnwm]

Tang sights would be good for deliberate long-range shots, but for situations that might call for a snap shot you don't want to have to take extra actions like flipping it up. Likewise having to power up a red dot or get the covers off a scope etc. A thick-brush short-range gun should be more point-and-shoot. But sometimes business comes up at short range while you're holding your long-range rifle.

And with anything, considering the possible consequences of getting it wrong. Some things don't matter as much, others could do dire hurt and need extra care.

Absolutely! In the case of my little mishap, the problem was entirely operator error. I never intentionally folded down the rear sight, it just got knocked over on the way to the elk. My fault for not consciously making sure that it was still up when I took that second unfortunate shot.

I believe that the unlucky lady in question who drove the sight into her eye was shooting at some extreme upward angle, which would have drastically reduced the distance from her eye to the sight, resulting in contact. Still operator error, just a different variety.

When shooting a short-range rifle at a long-range animal...it's often the critter that suffers. With the reverse, i.e. a long-range gun and an up-close target...it might be the shooter who suffers!

Worth remembering, also, that on a .45-70 wearing a tang sight and sighted-in for, say, 150 or 200 yards or even further, the sight will be pretty high up above the line of bore. At much closer ranges, the parallax between line of sight (starting way up high) and trajectory of bullet (starting low and falling fast) can be extreme. The initial intersection of line of sight and bullet will be very close to the muzzle, much closer than you might expect if you're accustomed to low-mounted sights and faster, flatter cartridges...but thanks to the big bullet's rapid drop, the mid-range trajectory will place the shot much higher above your line of sight than you might expect a bit further out, before the bullet and line-of-sight intersect the second time.

 

[thymallus arcticus]

This thread seems like it might have folks that already were aware of what I will share but it also seems like a thread that might have folks who would want to know this, if they didn't already.

I recently got my Kimber Hunter setup with a NECG Weaver peep and Lee Enfield No.1 Front sight (0.015 height blade) and they are kind of perfectly matched (as picture below). However, while getting sighted in I was using "targetz.com" printable 4" solid dot target at 100m and I learned a something about peep sights that never occurred to me before. I usually staple 2 8.5x11 sheet targets on my cardboard box so that I can shoot two loads or two guns at once. While shooting the Kimber with the peep I had two of the 4" bullseye targets side by side and I found the trick your eye does to auto centre the circle within the peep gets buggered up by having two dots too close to each other and my shots would pull towards the other target. (e.g., if I was trying to shoot the target on the left side of the box, I would always hit on the right side of the target and vice versa). When I pair the bullseye target with a crosshair target or only had one target on the box I would land dead centre.

 

[jjohnwm]

This thread seems like it might have folks that already were aware of what I will share but it also seems like a thread that might have folks who would want to know this, if they didn't already.

I recently got my Kimber Hunter setup with a NECG Weaver peep and Lee Enfield No.1 Front sight (0.015 height blade) and they are kind of perfectly matched (as picture below). However, while getting sighted in I was using "targetz.com" printable 4" solid dot target at 100m and I learned a something about peep sights that never occurred to me before. I usually staple 2 8.5x11 sheet targets on my cardboard box so that I can shoot two loads or two guns at once. While shooting the Kimber with the peep I had two of the 4" bullseye targets side by side and I found the trick your eye does to auto centre the circle within the peep gets buggered up by having two dots too close to each other and my shots would pull towards the other target. (e.g., if I was trying to shoot the target on the left side of the box, I would always hit on the right side of the target and vice versa). When I pair the bullseye target with a crosshair target or only had one target on the box I would land dead centre.

I've shot with aperture rear sights for many years, actually getting back into it more lately after cataract surgery improved my vision noticeably. I've always been aware that sunshine from the side causes your shots stray towards that side, but I've gotta admit I've never seen or experienced the sort of optical illusion you're describing.

Sounds a bit like looking where you want to go when cornering on a motorcycle. Look ahead at the road curving in front of you and that's where your bike will go. Panic and fixate on the weeds...and you're going into the weeds!